Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1100 Scott Adams： Cognitive Tests Biden Would Fail, How I Plan to Take Biden Out of the Race, TDS Cures, Brennan, and More

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in, come on in, gather around.

00:00:14.180 It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, best part of the day, every single time.

00:00:21.940 And what do you need to have the best coffee with Scott Adams?

00:00:26.680 Well, you've got to bring your good attitude, of course.

00:00:30.360 You've got to bring your sexy self. 0.96

00:00:33.120 You're wondering, how do I know you're sexy?

00:00:36.040 Oh, I know, I know, because you're here.

00:00:39.600 And you probably know because you're also quite smart.

00:00:44.900 How do I know you're quite smart?

00:00:47.400 It's because you're here.

00:00:49.380 And you know that all you need is a cup or mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein,

00:00:54.520 a canteen, a joker, a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:58.140 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:01:00.160 I like coffee.

00:01:01.800 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, 0.95

00:01:05.980 the thing that makes everything better except Joe Biden's broken brain.

00:01:10.800 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:01:14.920 It happens now.

00:01:15.560 Go.

00:01:22.440 Delightful.

00:01:23.900 Sublime.

00:01:24.340 I hope it was just as good for you.

00:01:29.060 Well, let's start with some fun topics first.

00:01:33.380 You may have seen a clip in which Van Jones over on CNN was saying of Biden's acceptance

00:01:41.120 speech that, I'm paraphrasing, but he said that they were prepared to praise it even if

00:01:48.640 it wasn't that good, and everybody said, hey, hey, see, see, you're admitting that you're

00:01:57.700 not, you know, trying to present the truth.

00:02:01.040 Now, first of all, Van Jones is not one of CNN's news professionals.

00:02:08.140 He's there to be, you know, a political voice.

00:02:11.720 But I'll tell you what I like about Van Jones, and it's one of the things I like about Trump.

00:02:18.640 When Trump is BSing you, you always sort of know it, which makes it okay.

00:02:26.160 If he's always BSing everybody all the time, he's always in, you know, sales mode, if you

00:02:31.440 will, hyperbole mode, you just say, oh, there's another one, and you're okay with it.

00:02:37.320 It doesn't bother you because there's sort of an honesty because it comes with a wink.

00:02:43.060 I know what you're doing, wink, wink.

00:02:45.340 It's only when somebody tries to sell their dishonesty as actually the truth that it gets

00:02:51.440 under your skin.

00:02:52.260 You're like, ah, that's just not the truth.

00:02:55.460 But if you give me a wink, I go, okay, I see where you're going with this.

00:02:59.240 And when Van Jones said, yeah, we were willing to, you were ready to come out and say this

00:03:03.880 was a good speech, even if it wasn't, but then he goes on to say what it was the greatest

00:03:08.140 speech Joe Biden's ever given.

00:03:10.620 Now, do you believe him?

00:03:12.620 Do you believe that he really thought it was Joe Biden's best speech when he just winked

00:03:18.720 at you?

00:03:19.320 He literally just winked at you and told you that he would have no intention of shading

00:03:26.260 it any way other than it was a great speech.

00:03:28.400 And then he tells you it was an extra great speech.

00:03:32.980 I have to say, I just appreciate it because it's not hiding anything.

00:03:37.000 There's a, there's a transparency there that you have to appreciate.

00:03:41.100 So I give him a good grades on that.

00:03:45.800 I always like Van Jones.

00:03:47.840 Even if I disagree with him on some political stuff, I always think he's the real deal.

00:03:53.620 Um, so yesterday, I think it was yesterday, I was trying to deprogram my most TDS infected

00:04:04.520 friend and I've, I've mentioned him before.

00:04:06.640 And the reason I use him as my example is that he's so smart.

00:04:12.300 If you were not really, really smart and also really well informed, this wouldn't be interesting. 0.97

00:04:19.960 It's just that, you know, you can't blame him for being dumb or, you know, just not following 0.98

00:04:26.460 the news or something because it's not that. 0.95

00:04:28.780 So you've limited to, to TDS or I have it, right?

00:04:33.280 Or, or I'm crazy.

00:04:34.860 Those are the two things you have left.

00:04:37.120 Once you've determined that people are smart and well-intentioned and, and reasonably informed.

00:04:42.900 And one of the hoaxes that he believed is that Trump had suggested drinking disinfectants.

00:04:51.920 Now you've all heard that one, right?

00:04:54.160 That the news widely reported that Trump had at least noodled on the idea publicly of maybe

00:05:01.400 drinking disinfectants.

00:05:03.340 That never happened.

00:05:06.100 It's just fake news.

00:05:07.720 But my friend believed it.

00:05:10.220 And as evidence, he said, look, it's right there on the, on the video.

00:05:15.120 You don't have to wonder if it happened.

00:05:17.740 Just look at the video.

00:05:19.840 Now here was the interesting part.

00:05:21.840 Remember, my friend is logical, very committed to rational thought, which is the important part.

00:05:29.060 Very committed to reason and data and rational thought.

00:05:32.860 And I said, you know, I've watched that too.

00:05:36.860 And it doesn't say that.

00:05:38.120 And I had to go back and look at it again.

00:05:40.280 And I had explained to him that if you didn't know that there was legitimately a light technology

00:05:46.760 that the researchers were actively talking about at that period, they were actively talking

00:05:54.680 about it.

00:05:55.080 It was a conversation that I tweeted about, I talked about on Periscope, about putting light,

00:06:02.220 UV light, a certain kind, on a ventilator, sticking it, inserting it into the body, and

00:06:09.140 it would maybe shine that light on your trachea, possibly all the way to your lungs.

00:06:13.960 And they didn't know if it would work.

00:06:16.100 It was one of those things that had potential because the light would kill a virus, but it

00:06:19.760 doesn't hurt cells.

00:06:20.600 Although, by the way, I think there was a warning today from the FDA saying that maybe that UV

00:06:27.140 light is not so safe.

00:06:29.260 So we have new information since then.

00:06:32.480 But I went back and I looked at it, and I could see that Trump introduced the topic by

00:06:38.960 talking about light being used externally.

00:06:42.200 And then he said, is there something you could do, you know, like that?

00:06:46.360 But then he used the word disinfectant, which is the word that had been used by the researchers

00:06:52.960 themselves, light as a disinfectant.

00:06:56.100 It's exactly what it is.

00:06:58.140 So he used the word disinfectant once, separated by a little bit of time from the time he was

00:07:05.500 specifically talking about light as a disinfectant.

00:07:09.180 So there you'd say to yourself, oh, wait a minute, is that a new topic?

00:07:13.140 Because he talked about light as a disinfectant.

00:07:16.500 And then he talked about just the word disinfectant.

00:07:20.500 And there was a little bit of time that went by.

00:07:22.920 So you say, oh, that could be a new topic.

00:07:26.040 Maybe he's talking about drinking bleach.

00:07:28.820 Except that if you listen to how he bookends the topic, he makes sure that you knew it was

00:07:35.080 light.

00:07:35.560 So he started with light, talked about things, but used the word disinfectant by itself.

00:07:42.980 And then he closed that topic by making sure you knew it was about light.

00:07:49.480 Now, once I pointed this out to my friend and sent him a link to the actual article that

00:07:55.160 said they were testing this exact thing.

00:07:57.360 And the article was dated from that period.

00:07:59.460 And I told him that, oh, and so then my friend said, yeah, but you can't tell me that Trump

00:08:07.440 was aware of this obscure little thing, to which I said, yeah, I can.

00:08:16.780 Because there are enough people that follow my Twitter feed.

00:08:21.480 And I personally was tweeting about it.

00:08:23.980 And I personally was doing periscopes on it.

00:08:26.220 And I do know that some members of the White House do, in fact, watch my periscopes and

00:08:34.140 do, in fact, retweet my tweets.

00:08:36.480 In fact, the president has retweeted me, I don't know, several times.

00:08:41.040 So I know that the White House watches this topic.

00:08:45.800 And so how often do you get to tell your friend in an argument when he says, well, how would

00:08:50.180 the president know about that?

00:08:51.860 How often do you ever get to say, well, you heard about it from me?

00:08:56.220 Which was sort of the best way an argument could ever go.

00:09:02.100 Now, I don't know if he heard about it from me.

00:09:03.980 I just know it's a real thing.

00:09:05.340 I talked about it.

00:09:06.580 I know they watch, or some members watch.

00:09:09.380 And I know that what he was talking about was exactly that thing.

00:09:12.640 If you know what that thing is, and then you hear him talk about it, it's obvious that's

00:09:16.380 what he's talking about.

00:09:17.060 And so once I had convinced my highly rational friend, because now he saw it was real, he

00:09:24.300 knew exactly where it could have come from, me, and he saw that it had been bookended by

00:09:30.440 light, what do you think he did?

00:09:33.040 Do you think that he then said, my goodness, I didn't realize that I had been subject to

00:09:39.060 a hoax all of this time?

00:09:40.940 Do you think that's how it went?

00:09:45.140 Nope.

00:09:46.720 Nope.

00:09:47.680 Believe it or not, though, he did accept that the president was talking about light as a

00:09:53.340 disinfectant.

00:09:54.120 Can you believe that?

00:09:55.720 I actually convinced a real living person that the information that they got as news

00:10:02.180 was not true, on a very important point, that he had believed it was true, and had based

00:10:09.020 a good part of his opinion on.

00:10:11.080 Have you ever seen that done?

00:10:14.120 I'm trying to think of one time in my whole life, I've seen somebody go from, that's not

00:10:20.020 a fact, and I'm positive, to, oh, that is a fact.

00:10:24.120 It's very rare.

00:10:26.160 So then did my friend say, I guess you make your point, Scott, I take back everything I've

00:10:31.880 said on this topic, it's clear now that you are completely right, and maybe even involved

00:10:38.340 in the story.

00:10:40.440 Did he say that?

00:10:42.040 No.

00:10:43.060 Here's what he said.

00:10:44.640 Well, Scott, he said, you called that fake news, and I would say that's not fake news,

00:10:51.460 because fake news assumes that there's an intent to fake, whereas this is obviously just the

00:10:57.620 news people, maybe didn't know as much as you knew, or as you've explained now, as much

00:11:02.700 as the president knew.

00:11:04.000 So maybe the news was just incorrect.

00:11:06.640 So that's not fake news.

00:11:10.300 That would just be news that's incorrect on a horrible, horrible way, because it painted

00:11:16.640 the president as telling people to drink bleach, which is exactly how it was reported.

00:11:21.960 Those words, drink bleach.

00:11:24.000 Nothing like that ever happened in the real world, but that's how it was reported.

00:11:28.320 Mostly the pundits were saying the drink bleach part.

00:11:30.620 So, yeah, so he changed it to the definition of what fake news is.

00:11:37.660 Maybe that's as close as you can get.

00:11:41.500 I don't know.

00:11:45.680 So, I think it was, who said this?

00:11:50.860 You've noticed, a lot of people said this, that the Democratic Convention didn't mention

00:11:56.580 impeachment.

00:11:57.300 Now, isn't that mind-blowing, that we spent all that time on impeachment, and it wasn't

00:12:04.840 even brought up, nor has Biden brought it up, as far as I can remember.

00:12:10.780 Can you?

00:12:11.320 Have you ever seen Biden talk about impeachment as being a real thing?

00:12:16.080 And you have to ask yourself, what's up with that?

00:12:20.460 Well, let me tell you what's up with that.

00:12:23.680 Speculating.

00:12:24.160 Now, it could be that the Democrats have tested that approach.

00:12:29.500 One assumes that they've done polling, and they've maybe done focus groups, and they

00:12:34.440 know that that topic just doesn't work for them.

00:12:37.480 And that could be part of it.

00:12:39.020 But part of the reason might be, and I teach you this all the time, it's a fact of persuasion,

00:12:46.780 that people's memories can merge.

00:12:49.180 So your memory of one thing, if it's in any way similar to some other thing, they can start

00:12:55.140 to conflate in your mind.

00:12:58.900 And let me ask you this.

00:13:00.480 If you were to ask the average citizen today, so not when it was happening, but today, if

00:13:07.740 you just stopped somebody in the street, Democrat, or let's say a Democrat, and you say, do you

00:13:14.580 remember impeachment?

00:13:16.560 What was it about?

00:13:19.120 What would they say?

00:13:20.800 Would they say accurately that it was something about Ukraine and a perfect letter and something

00:13:27.600 like that?

00:13:28.020 Would they?

00:13:28.780 A lot of people would.

00:13:30.200 Yes, they would.

00:13:31.660 But you know what a lot of people would say?

00:13:34.620 A lot of people would say that impeachment was about Russia collusion.

00:13:39.640 Because they won't, their brain will not separate Ukraine from Russia, even though it should. 0.82

00:13:48.460 And it'll all seem like one big ball of stuff.

00:13:51.320 And it will also seem like nonsense, because Trump was not removed from office.

00:13:58.680 So all they're going to know is that Russia collusion was not only a gigantic fake operation

00:14:05.380 to remove the president from office, which maybe you don't want to mention your team was

00:14:10.700 involved with.

00:14:12.900 So it didn't work.

00:14:14.740 But at the same time, Durham is actively investigating the very people who are behind the Russia 0.62

00:14:20.940 collusion hoax.

00:14:22.900 So I think the Democrats don't want you to be thinking about the Russia collusion hoax.

00:14:29.900 And you would if you thought about impeachment, because first they wanted to impeach about

00:14:34.980 that, but they couldn't find anything that was purely Russian.

00:14:38.580 So they thought, what's as close as we can get to a Russian thing, maybe a Ukraine thing?

00:14:44.400 And then the public probably just merged it all.

00:14:48.460 I'll bet the average person cannot sort out what was impeachment about Russia, Ukraine,

00:14:55.480 whatever.

00:14:56.400 But they might know that Durham talked to Brennan yesterday for eight hours, and that there's

00:15:04.040 at least one part of the investigation we know was falsified.

00:15:09.560 You know, the lawyer, Clyde Smith, who I guess he's pled guilty to falsifying FISA stuff for

00:15:18.760 Carter Page investigation.

00:15:20.760 Now, that alone is one of the worst abuses of, you know, government power I've ever seen.

00:15:27.320 So I can see why they would ignore the impeachment.

00:15:30.120 Now, if you were a Democrat, and it ever came up to your mind, hey, why is the most important

00:15:39.080 thing my party did last year, or it's hard to believe it was actually this year, it seems

00:15:45.120 like it was last year, but this year, why is the thing my party spent the most time on,

00:15:51.040 their biggest criticism, they're not mentioning now?

00:15:55.520 Is it because it went well?

00:15:58.740 No, it's because it didn't go well.

00:16:02.240 So that's got to give you a little less trust in your party if you're a Democrat.

00:16:08.880 All right.

00:16:10.280 A radio station in Cleveland fired one of their news people for using a racially insensitive

00:16:18.920 word.

00:16:19.420 Now, when I saw the headline, I thought to myself, oh, my goodness, how could anybody

00:16:25.520 in 2020 use the N-word on the radio and think that's going to be okay?

00:16:33.440 How are they going to use that word and not know they're going to be fired immediately?

00:16:38.260 And indeed, he was fired immediately.

00:16:40.000 And then I read the article, and it wasn't the N-word, because, of course, nobody would

00:16:45.780 intentionally use that word on the radio.

00:16:47.380 What he said was, and I think he was 24, 26, it was a young guy, and he said that Kamala

00:16:55.940 Harris, using his words, was the first colored vice president candidate, presidential candidate.

00:17:05.640 Now, he was immediately informed that that is an old-timey racially insensitive term, and

00:17:14.240 he was fired.

00:17:17.560 Here's what Black Lives Matter gets wrong, like really wrong. 1.00

00:17:22.500 The right response to this from Black Lives Matter should have been, you should immediately 1.00

00:17:29.760 rehire that guy.

00:17:32.020 Why?

00:17:33.100 He was 26, I'm being told in the comments.

00:17:36.460 Why should Black Lives Matter immediately and publicly say, whoa, whoa, whoa, you went too 0.60

00:17:41.760 far.

00:17:42.080 That guy's got to get his job back.

00:17:43.540 Why?

00:17:45.200 Because there was no bad intent.

00:17:48.480 He was simply somebody who didn't have, he didn't have whatever, I don't know, grounding

00:17:54.680 or context to know that that would be an offensive word.

00:17:59.380 Now, I've talked to you about the power of reciprocity, right?

00:18:04.320 What does it mean to the Black community that there were more white people protesting for

00:18:11.240 them than there were Black people protesting, at least in some number of places?

00:18:17.360 What does that mean to the Black community that there are so many white people who are

00:18:22.360 taking their position as aggressively as possible?

00:18:26.000 It probably means a lot.

00:18:27.140 Because reciprocity, hey, you did something for me and you're asking nothing in return,

00:18:33.280 is really powerful.

00:18:35.700 Now, if Black Lives Matter wanted to be persuasive, if they wanted to continue getting white people 0.97

00:18:42.460 on their side to take them seriously about the things that are the serious things that

00:18:47.540 need to be fixed, the best strategy for that would be reciprocity.

00:18:54.660 Reciprocity.

00:18:55.140 If you miss this easy, low-hanging fruit, you don't know anything about how to persuade,

00:19:03.520 except maybe fear and violence and whatever else.

00:19:07.360 But this is low-hanging fruit.

00:19:10.340 If Black Lives Matter, and this won't happen, obviously, but let's say the Black community,

00:19:15.880 if anybody said, this is too far, he's been informed that that's a word not to use, it's

00:19:22.660 obviously was not used with any bad intent.

00:19:25.900 Let's draw the line here.

00:19:27.540 Let's all of us get together, white and black, and decide that the little stuff is unimportant. 0.66

00:19:33.740 And let's work on this big stuff.

00:19:36.740 Now, if they did that, how much more support would they get for everything they want?

00:19:44.220 A lot. It's a big deal. It's not a small deal. It's a big, big deal.

00:19:51.680 And the fact that this 26-year-old was thrown under the bus gives me a bad feeling.

00:19:59.600 It gives me a bad feeling about the Black community.

00:20:02.060 Because I say to them, and again, when you talk about a group of people, you're automatically

00:20:09.100 being misleading. So keep in mind, this is nothing about any individual, and it's always

00:20:15.920 risky to say anything about the average of people. Well, this group as a whole is doing

00:20:20.320 this or that. That's never completely fair. But the way it feels is that I'm watching tons

00:20:27.440 of white people giving and giving, and quite legitimately, and quite all with the right

00:20:32.540 interest to make the world a better place, to help the people who need the greatest help.

00:20:38.500 And you can't give back this little thing, such a small thing. Just give this one guy,

00:20:47.160 just give him a pass. Is that a lot to ask? Because if you can't give that, it's free,

00:20:54.740 it's easy, it's obvious, you can't give us that? How much do you want in return? How much work

00:21:04.920 should we put in to help, again, there's no individual who represents the group, but how

00:21:12.360 much should you give to a group who can't give you that much back? That's not asking a lot.

00:21:19.180 All right? Because remember, we all get the lesson. If you didn't know they're referring

00:21:25.620 to somebody in 2020 as colored, if you didn't know that's offensive, now you do. Didn't everybody 0.96

00:21:32.100 come out ahead? Aren't we all better for it? Isn't the whole point to educate, to improve,

00:21:39.340 you know, that we become better people? You know, we're imperfect, but hey, we're working

00:21:43.520 on it. You know, nobody's perfect, but look, I'm honestly working on it, trying to do what I can.

00:21:50.240 Isn't that what you want? Apparently not. All right. George Papadopoulos had some interesting

00:21:58.880 points about the fact that Brennan was interviewed by Durham. Now, the news says that Brennan is not

00:22:06.480 a target. He is simply a person they're talking to for information relative to the whole Russia

00:22:12.860 collusion stuff. And George Papadopoulos, you all know him from, if you're following any of the Russia

00:22:19.740 collusion story, you all know who he is. He's got a new book out whose name I can't remember, but I

00:22:24.640 invited him to be a guest on the Periscope to give us a little background. I haven't got an answer yet.

00:22:30.980 I just asked him before I got on. But maybe this week, if he says yes, we'll talk to him. He has

00:22:36.080 four questions to be asked of Brennan. Number one, ask about the Joseph Massoud, Azra Turk, I don't

00:22:44.100 know who Azra Turk is, identity and handlers. So apparently George Papadopoulos thinks there's

00:22:50.500 something with this George Massoud guy that if you dug down a little bit, you would find out some

00:22:56.840 stuff. Number two, ask about the UK and Australian intelligence used against the campaign. Have you

00:23:05.780 noticed the black hole on this topic? We're all watching this Russia collusion thing. And the words

00:23:12.960 Russia, Russia, Russia are the words in the headlines, the ones we're talking about. But with our own eyes,

00:23:19.660 we're seeing that this was a British operation. It's not maybe a British operation. Christopher Steele

00:23:27.760 was, you know, from the British intelligence. And then this next question gets to it the other

00:23:35.880 way, also from George Papadopoulos. Why were Trump advisors constantly being invited to London to meet

00:23:43.020 with agents? Why were they being invited to be with agents? Because the British intelligence was in

00:23:51.500 on something. Clearly British intelligence was involved in, let's say, influencing our elections.

00:24:02.460 And also Australian intelligence. So do you think anybody will ask any questions about that? Well,

00:24:09.460 they might ask the questions, but I don't know if we'll ever hear the answers. Because the answers

00:24:13.620 might be something the public, you know, can't hear, isn't supposed to hear anyway. But those are

00:24:18.760 pretty good questions. And the fourth thing that George Papadopoulos says is, maybe they should ask

00:24:24.060 Brennan about lying to Congress. And I'm thinking, are we all just going to ignore that? Is that what's

00:24:31.600 going to happen? That Brennan can lie to Congress? There won't be any doubt about it. There's no doubt.

00:24:37.740 Because you see what he said, you know, you can see what's true. And we'll just ignore it. We'll just

00:24:43.820 act like it didn't happen. Okay. Unless you think Brennan wasn't lying to Congress. So maybe.

00:24:54.220 All right, here's something that made me laugh yesterday when I realized it. And I'll give you

00:24:59.380 something that reminds me of. Because I'm famous, semi-famous, a little bit famous, whatever you want

00:25:10.120 to call it. I often think about what would happen if I died doing something stupid. And I feel as if 1.00

00:25:18.440 the moment before I was actually dead, I would feel so dumb that I did something that could have gotten 0.97

00:25:25.620 me killed. And sure enough, it did. And those last moments before I actually died, instead of thinking, 0.96

00:25:31.760 oh God, I'm going to die, that my actual thought would be, how stupid can I be? And that would be 1.00

00:25:39.140 my last breath. And I swear, this is an actual thought I have all the time. And an example would

00:25:45.740 be, let's say I thought to myself, you know, I like to do that rock climbing thing where they don't

00:25:52.580 have any, they don't have any support ropes on them. What's that called? Is it like free climbing

00:25:58.720 or something? And I don't have any skills for that. And really, you know, might be a little too old for

00:26:04.340 that kind of a sport, but I think I'm going to give it a shot. And then I'm, you know, I'm free climbing

00:26:09.460 up a cliff and I slip. And as I'm falling back in space, I'm not thinking to myself, oh, my life is

00:26:19.000 slashing before my eyes. I'm thinking to myself, I'm so stupid for trying to be a free rage rock 0.99

00:26:27.160 climber. So with that in mind, this is all to make this next thing funnier. Imagine if you will, 0.99

00:26:38.520 and I'll use Joe Biden's Joe Biden's technique. Close your eyes and imagine if you will.

00:26:45.880 It's the day after election day. And Joe Biden has so decomposed by election day,

00:26:54.040 that it's a landslide win for Trump. And you wake up after the election, you're a Democrat,

00:26:59.720 and you realize that you would have had a better result running absolutely anybody else on the

00:27:06.840 planet, except Joe Biden. Why was I so stupid? And it's not just going to hurt because you were wrong. 1.00

00:27:20.900 It's not going to hurt because you lost. It's not going to hurt because Trump won and you got another

00:27:28.580 four years of that. It's not going to hurt because you'll have to admit on TV or in other places that

00:27:34.740 you were sure Biden would win and he didn't. It's going to hurt because you will know the day after

00:27:44.240 the election, what you kind of suspect is true already, that Joe Biden is the last person in the

00:27:52.300 world you should pick to be your champion. Did you scour the 7 billion people on earth

00:27:58.260 and your champion, the one that you picked to represent your brand to save the country if not

00:28:04.580 the entire world, was the only guy who's passed his expiration date? That was your choice? That's

00:28:12.820 like me trying to be a free rock climber. That idea never sounded good. Let me be clear about this.

00:28:20.700 The day after election, when you've lost, remember, running Joe Biden as your champion

00:28:28.440 was never a good idea. I mean, I understand how he got there. It was the oddities of how primaries work

00:28:35.980 and, you know, because they had name recognition and, you know, there was one moderate, but there were

00:28:40.920 lots of progressives and they kind of gamed the system to keep Elizabeth Warren in there to take votes 0.98

00:28:47.220 away from Bernie until the last minute. So obviously the game was rigged for Biden.

00:28:55.920 But that's not going to make you feel any smarter for supporting him when you did. So when I thought

00:29:01.220 of that, I just laughed. I've decided that the best way to summarize Joe Biden's, let's say,

00:29:09.960 approach to campaigning is angry, squinty, caring. And it's better if you put a dash

00:29:17.140 between angry, squinty and caring, because that's all he's got. He gives you his squinty eyes

00:29:25.680 and he gives you his angry demeanor. And he tells you how much he cares. I care. I care about this

00:29:33.600 country. I'm going to protect this country as well as I've protected my family. What? Okay. Maybe that

00:29:41.940 was the wrong thing to say. Apparently people are going to look into how well I protected my family.

00:29:49.160 So angry, squinty, caring. I think that just summarizes him entirely. So this morning, Rush Limbaugh

00:29:57.660 is getting the full fake news treatment. They're doing the same trick that the fake news used to

00:30:04.080 create the fine people hoax and the drinking disinfectant hoaxes. They're done the same way.

00:30:09.500 Do you know how? They're done by cutting out the clarifying part of the quote. So if you see the

00:30:19.200 part, the first part of a quote or the first part of some statements, you might think, hey, that looks

00:30:24.900 pretty bad. But if you saw the rest of the statement, you say, oh, I get what you're saying.

00:30:30.260 You're not saying that bad thing. You're putting it in a different context. That's fine. So that's how

00:30:36.380 the hoaxes are created. They show the part that's true, and they leave out the other part that's true

00:30:41.180 that would have reversed its meaning. So they did that to Rush Limbaugh today. And so what Rush Limbaugh

00:30:49.760 really said, before I tell you how they took him out of context, was that he was comparing

00:30:55.680 the Biden bid for, let's say, empathy, maybe, or relating to him because he had lost family members.

00:31:05.700 And Rush said that we're supposed to feel sorry for Biden because his wife and child died. But then

00:31:12.220 the part they cut out, which is the clarifying part, they don't show that in the headline. They bury that in

00:31:19.200 the subtitle, or they bury it in the text, is the fact that, but why can't we show the same sympathy

00:31:26.660 for the president who just lost his brother, just lost him. It was brand new. The president is

00:31:34.160 literally still grieving, but we don't count that. Like, that doesn't count. He doesn't get any of our,

00:31:42.000 you know, our good thoughts for his. So if you see it in context, he's just making a, you know,

00:31:49.320 hypocrisy, why don't we treat them the same kind of a situation, which would be perfectly legitimate.

00:31:55.360 It's a reasonable political comment to say that one person's tragedy is being highlighted,

00:32:01.960 and another one's is being mocked, literally mocked. You know, the president's brother dying

00:32:07.600 was a subject of mockery, literally. And is it fair to point that out, that it's being treated

00:32:14.040 differently? No, it's the most common thing in news punditry, is to point out hypocrisy. It's not 0.67

00:32:20.520 very persuasive, but it's always part of the, you know, the general texture of this stuff. So if you

00:32:28.780 look at the tweets, the tweets will say the first part, we're supposed to feel sorry for Biden because

00:32:33.880 he lost his wife and children. And then they leave out the part where he puts it in context,

00:32:38.540 which would not have bothered you. 90% of the people who see the tweet or the headline will

00:32:47.120 never read the story, because it's one of those stories where you think the headline is the story.

00:32:52.500 Don't you see quite often? Sorry, I got to get rid of a troll here. Goodbye. All right.

00:33:10.600 So I tweeted after Biden's speech that Biden's darkened devices speech filled with anger and lies

00:33:19.060 as a national embarrassment. Now, part of the fun of that tweet is that I wanted to show you that

00:33:25.980 there are some words that can be applied to anybody. So I took words that are normally applied to Trump

00:33:32.960 by his critics. I simply just used the same kind of words and applied them to Biden. And you can see

00:33:39.020 that they fit. So if you think that these words say something about the candidate, you'd be wrong.

00:33:46.480 Because if you have words that fit every candidate, you're not saying anything. You're not saying

00:33:52.940 anything. And listen to this. This could literally fit any Republican, any Democrat. They give a speech.

00:34:00.280 They say some good things, some bad things about the country. And then you as the critic come in later

00:34:05.960 and say, it was a darkened devices speech filled with anger and lies. It's a national embarrassment.

00:34:11.420 Could you make that fit for just about any candidate giving any speech? Yes. So I made a fit to Biden.

00:34:21.500 And you can see that when they make these same words fit the president, do they fit? Well, in their

00:34:28.140 view of the world, yes. But if you don't understand that these same words would fit every candidate for

00:34:34.400 every speech, with some exception. There'd be probably some candidate who says nothing but

00:34:39.980 unicorns and rainbows. But it's uncommon. Generally, a politician is going to complain about what's wrong

00:34:47.680 before saying why they're the one that can fix it. So as long as you've got that complaining about

00:34:52.320 what's wrong, you can always say it's dark and divisive. It fits every time. All right.

00:34:57.600 Here's another funny thing that I thought about last night. So some of you saw my rant about the

00:35:05.720 fine people hoax. And it made quite a bit of news because there were lots of other people who were

00:35:12.820 making similar comments and amplifying each other. So it should have been one of the biggest things

00:35:18.940 that trended on Twitter yesterday, the fine people hoax. Did you ever see that in the Twitter

00:35:26.840 trending? Find people hoax? Has that ever trended? Because there's often a lot of talk about it.

00:35:37.140 Nope. Now, maybe, maybe, and I've missed it. So I will allow that I could have missed it.

00:35:44.420 But I think somebody would have pointed that out to me. Because usually if there's anything of that

00:35:49.720 much interest to me, and people know it, people DM me and they tweeted at me and say, hey, hey,

00:35:55.100 did you see this thing? Nobody has ever said to me, Scott, good job. It looks like you got that

00:36:02.040 fine people hoax trending. Because I don't think it trended. I don't think it did. Despite all the

00:36:12.260 people talking about it, one of the biggest stories didn't trend at all. Huh? How about that?

00:36:18.240 So here's the funny thought I had, and see if you would agree with this. I tweeted this. I said,

00:36:25.740 by now, thousands of news people have double checked the fine people transcript. Now, because

00:36:32.900 there were lots of people supporting the president pushing back on Biden's claim about the fine people

00:36:38.660 hoax, clearly you would expect that all the news people who believed it was true would just go back

00:36:45.720 to double check that they were right. Because often people tweeted the transcript. So they wouldn't

00:36:50.920 have to do any work. They would just have to be following any of these accounts that were

00:36:55.460 continuously retweeting the transcript. And maybe some of those reporters and journalists

00:37:02.420 and news people, maybe they took a minute to actually read it and remind themselves what actually

00:37:09.220 happened that day or to watch the videos that people were tweeting. And if they did,

00:37:13.880 how many of them, certainly not all of them, but how many of the hundreds, if not thousands of 0.99

00:37:21.280 news people who went and double checked that story, how many of them had an oh shit moment? 0.98

00:37:29.880 Now, if you think the oh shit moment is just about that being a hoax, because that's what hundreds of 0.99

00:37:36.700 them would have realized. They would have read it and they would have said, hey, every time I see this 0.97

00:37:41.400 clip, they leave out the second part where Trump says in direct language, just so there'll be no

00:37:46.540 confusion. I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis. They should be

00:37:52.240 condemned completely. His exact words. Now, if you leave those out, you could easily be confused by

00:37:59.180 what he said before. But because he knew that at the time, that it wasn't as clear as it could be,

00:38:04.520 he put those words in. Without being asked, he simply realized that it could be taken ambiguously.

00:38:11.840 So he clarified as clearly as you can. No, I'm not talking about the marchers. I'm talking about

00:38:17.460 people who were there just about the statue. Now, whether or not there were people there about

00:38:23.100 the statue who were finding people or not, the president clarified his assumption. Worst case scenario,

00:38:30.000 he didn't have current information about who attended. That's it. The worst it could be is

00:38:36.540 that he didn't know exactly who attended. Do you know who else didn't know exactly who attended?

00:38:42.320 The entire news media. Nobody knows who attended. That is completely unknown. I know who attended

00:38:51.340 because I actually did reporting on it. I actually talked to people who attended and said,

00:38:58.320 do you support the racists? Are you for or against the statues? Why would you come to an event that is

00:39:05.000 so clearly organized by white supremacists? Why would you be here if you're not one of them?

00:39:11.780 And they had good reasons. For example, some were local. It was walking distance. They wanted the

00:39:19.280 statues to stay. They weren't with anybody. They were just walking distance. It was their city. It was

00:39:24.860 their park. And so there was no, there was nothing to stop them from walking there. So they thought

00:39:30.360 they'd walk over there, take a look, maybe voice their opinion about keeping the statues. And I asked

00:39:35.980 them, well, do you agree with the racist? And they'd be, hell no. I'm not a racist. I don't agree with

00:39:42.600 the racist. I just live nearby. I heard there was going to be a thing about the statues. I didn't see

00:39:47.700 any posters. It was in the news. My friends told me there was a thing about the statue. Was there

00:39:53.620 anybody who told me I couldn't go? Did somebody say, oh, wait, no, this is only for the white 0.57

00:39:58.660 supremacists. You're not allowed to go. You're not allowed to walk two blocks in this direction 0.95

00:40:04.000 to see Antifa and white supremacists getting in a fight. I've told you this before. If I ever hear

00:40:10.540 that Antifa and white supremacists are going to have a protest and a counter protest in my town,

00:40:16.220 I would walk five miles to watch that stuff. Because I would like watching them beat each 0.94

00:40:22.480 other up. Like, it's the only time you can watch a fight while hoping for everybody to lose. I mean,

00:40:28.520 it's a very rare thing. And so there were real people there. And one of the people I talked to was

00:40:38.780 Jewish. He had a Jewish heritage. I don't know what his practice was, but Jewish heritage. Do you think a

00:40:46.240 guy with Jewish heritage went to the Charlottesville event and he was in favor of keeping the statues for

00:40:56.260 historical reasons or free speech reasons? I don't know. He had his own reasons. But he obviously

00:41:01.920 disavowed the racists because the racists were saying things about him. He was one of the people

00:41:09.380 that the racists were against. But he was just there for his own reasons. And he knew that, you know, some

00:41:16.840 rough people had organized it. But he said to himself quite reasonably, am I not allowed to go?

00:41:22.840 Well, stop texting me when you know I'm on Periscope. All right. So anyway, the press did not talk to

00:41:37.120 anybody, but I did. And so I have some idea what happened there. Now, how many people are waking up to

00:41:44.880 this thought, oh, wow, this was a hoax all the time, because they looked at the transcript and realized it was a

00:41:50.420 hoax. But that's not the fun part. Somebody says, how did I know he was a Jew? He told me.

00:41:58.520 Do you think I tested his DNA or something? No, he told me. Now, if you're assuming that he lied to me,

00:42:07.920 I suppose anything's possible. But keep in mind, I talked to several people who were also representing

00:42:13.260 several other people that they went with. So just the people I talked to were aware of or went with,

00:42:19.840 I don't know, maybe 20 or so people that I'm pretty reasonably sure had the characteristic of

00:42:25.500 fine people, and they were not racist. Although I disagree with them on statues, on anti-statue.

00:42:32.620 So here's the oh shit moment. The oh shit moment is not the point where a Democrat realizes that the 1.00

00:42:40.880 fine people hoax is a hoax. That's the first part of the oh shit. Do you know what the second part is? 1.00

00:42:47.700 Because until recently, it was just this nagging thing about the president that was a persistent

00:42:57.960 hoax that people believed. And that's sort of all it was. It was bad, but that's what it was.

00:43:05.200 But recently, Biden made it the centerpiece for his campaign. What would happen to Biden's campaign

00:43:13.560 if the very centerpiece, the thing he built his entire campaign on, which is the fine people hoax,

00:43:20.020 and Biden says it pretty directly, there's not much interpretation I'm putting on this at all.

00:43:26.400 Biden features it as his primary story of why the president needs to be replaced. It's the central

00:43:33.840 theme of his campaign. And here's the problem. What if it's not true? And it is not true. But what

00:43:44.260 about all the people who said, well, Biden's got a pretty good thing there. And then they looked at

00:43:49.080 the transcript and realized, oh shit. Oh shit. This isn't just about debunking the hoax anymore. 1.00

00:43:58.260 This is Biden's entire campaign. And it's based on something which is objectively easily debunked.

00:44:07.340 You don't even have to wonder. You just read the transcript. It's right there. In plain words,

00:44:14.560 you just have to look at it. And then you would realize that the hoax works by cutting off the second

00:44:19.320 half that clarifies what the president meant when he said he condemned it totally, the neo-Nazis and

00:44:26.620 white nationalists. So imagine if you're the Democrats and you've awakened to the idea that

00:44:33.080 your candidate has built a foundation on something that is easily debunked. And it's worse than that.

00:44:41.140 It's not just an ordinary bad thing. It's something that created gigantic division in this country

00:44:47.480 because it supports all the other hoax allegations. Think of it this way. If you had heard five

00:44:55.000 allegations about somebody, it doesn't matter who you're talking about. Here are five allegations

00:45:00.000 and all five of the allegations are a little sketchy. It's like somebody who this person fired,

00:45:08.160 said bad things about them. You're like, well, that's what fired people say. Or it happened 20

00:45:15.080 years ago and he wasn't directly involved. And you go, well, maybe it's true, but that was a long time

00:45:21.760 ago. And I'm not sure we could trust the people who say they heard it. But what if one of the five

00:45:28.860 things you knew to be true because you saw it with your own eyes, you heard it with your own ears.

00:45:34.760 So one of the five, you know to be true. What does that make you think about the other four

00:45:40.680 that were not as obviously true? You think those are true too, don't you? And that's what the

00:45:48.300 fine people hoax did. It made everything else that Trump has been accused of become real even without

00:45:56.680 credible information. Because there's that one of them that's so obviously real. I heard it with my

00:46:02.580 own ears. I saw it with my own eyes. And that's literally what people say. They'll say it over and

00:46:07.200 over again. Don't gaslight me and tell me this didn't happen. I was, I watched it live. But they

00:46:14.440 didn't. They watched the fake edit without the clarification. So once they realize that they've

00:46:20.800 been duped by that, they realize that there's an easy play to take Biden out. And I'm going to take

00:46:26.840 that play. And the play goes like this. I am going to be such a raging asshole about this fine people

00:46:34.340 hoax that I will be harder and harder to ignore. And once I've dismantled this thing, 0.98

00:46:44.440 I will have dismantled Biden at the same time. And as I've said, this is personal. This isn't

00:46:51.780 politics. This isn't about supporting Trump. It does that, obviously. It's not about hurting Biden

00:46:58.500 per se. It's about the fact that Biden has painted a target on my back and on the back of all Trump

00:47:05.880 supporters with this hoax. This is not a normal hoax. A hoax about Russia is just about some

00:47:13.920 professional campaign people and politicians, you know, allegedly did something with another

00:47:19.680 country. No, this is about targeting your citizens. And I'm one of them. All right, I'm leaving out the

00:47:27.100 cursing for this one because I didn't give a warning. I think it's fair to curse if I give you a warning,

00:47:31.060 but not if I don't. And so that's the play. So Joe Biden is not only a liar and an asshole,

00:47:42.060 but he's perpetrating the worst hoax in American history. It's the worst, not because it's the most 1.00

00:47:50.420 untrue or anything like that, but because it targets citizens. It divides the country. It supports all the

00:47:57.300 other bad thoughts that we have. It's incredible. You may have seen Greg Gottfeld took on the hoax

00:48:03.240 also on The Five yesterday, including taking his own network to task for not being a little more

00:48:10.380 clear about the hoax nature of that story. So, and of course, he was immediately attacked by

00:48:18.060 Bulwark. Have you ever heard of Bulwark? There are some kind of very left publication that operates

00:48:26.980 basically as just a hit piece. So if you have hit pieces coming after you, you're doing something

00:48:33.700 right. They don't send hits after somebody who's not over the target, if you know what I mean.

00:48:39.740 So yesterday I had a strange experience, which was MSNBC contacted me through my publisher to ask me

00:48:49.860 to be on one of their shows, one of the political newsy shows. Now, what would you have done if you

00:48:58.020 were me and MSNBC wanted to have you on the show? They didn't say, but I assume it's because of my

00:49:04.840 video about the fine people hoax, giving me an opportunity to bring that message that it's a hoax

00:49:11.460 to an audience that largely wouldn't have seen it until now. So I should take it, right? It seems

00:49:18.540 like perfect opportunity. I've got a message. I want to reach this audience. That is the audience I want

00:49:24.460 to reach. No, I turned it down because I'm not an idiot. I live in the real world. And I tweeted this 0.91

00:49:33.560 to see if people could know why this was a trap. Here's why it was a trap. Number one,

00:49:39.880 it came out of left field that this is the first time they want me on camera. Really? The only time

00:49:46.300 I've ever been on MSNBC is when I was on book tour. And that's just sort of an automatic booking.

00:49:52.300 You know, somebody famous has a book, bring them on, see what they have to say. So, but outside of the

00:49:58.080 book tour process, I don't know that I've been invited to MSNBC, or if I have not for years,

00:50:05.800 why yesterday? Well, I'll tell you why. Because I was over the target and I drew blood. And when I made

00:50:15.120 so much noise about this hoax, and specifically the way I did it, it became a little bit harder to

00:50:22.040 ignore. And so if they can't ignore me, they have to extinguish me. And so I immediately became on the

00:50:29.920 target set for people to be discredited. Now, why would they invite the cartoonist to talk about

00:50:37.540 this when they could have invited, let's say, Steve Cortez, somebody whose entire job, you know,

00:50:45.760 at least lately, his entire job is talking about politics, and representing the, you know, the Trump

00:50:52.100 worldview, has been a paid political, you know, person, funded, whatever you want to call it,

00:51:00.220 on CNN, until CNN didn't like him bringing up the fine people hoax. Wouldn't he be the perfect person to

00:51:06.660 have a credible discussion about this hoax? Yeah, he'd be a real good choice. Very credible.

00:51:14.760 How about Joel Pollack of Breitbart has written about this topic a number of times, tweets about it a

00:51:23.220 number of times. He's followed the campaigns, literally traveled with Democrats during the

00:51:28.340 primaries, written books on the topic, completely credible voice for, you know, a worldview. Why not

00:51:37.200 invite him? Why would you invite the cartoonist? Well, it's obviously it's the

00:51:44.740 Scott Baio, my pillow move. What you want to do is you want to take the strongest message from the

00:51:51.800 side you don't like. You want to take the strongest message and pair it with the most ridiculous 0.98

00:51:57.640 messenger. Now, when I say most ridiculous, I'm not insulting Scott Baio or, you know, Mike Lindell, 0.96

00:52:05.560 the my pillow inventor. Both awesome people who, you know, did great things in their profession.

00:52:11.720 But you know that the play was that their audience doesn't know that I've spent most of the last four

00:52:19.080 years talking nothing but politics and persuasion. And this topic of a hoax in a political realm is

00:52:26.560 exactly my expertise. Meaning I'm a trained hypnotist. I write and talk about persuasion.

00:52:32.620 This is that it's persuasion in the context of politics. I'm actually the perfect person to talk to,

00:52:37.880 but not to their audience. I would be introduced as the Dilbert guy, first of all. So they would frame

00:52:48.000 me as a non-credible person. And then they say, why do you believe this thing that's clearly

00:52:53.100 wrong? Because we all heard it with our own ears. And then I would give my thing and then they would

00:52:59.640 talk over me. And then they would, then they would run out of time. And that's it. So I would be completely

00:53:07.340 discredited by not having enough time to make my point because everything is time limited on TV by

00:53:14.140 necessity. And here's the other trick. Smirkanish did this to me once. So Smirkanish is one of the more

00:53:22.080 reasonable people on CNN. I think he's actually quite reasonable. Been on the show a few times.

00:53:28.780 One of the times I was on his show, I agreed to be on the show. And after I'd agreed, and this is very,

00:53:35.000 this is key. After I'd agreed to be on, they said, oh, we're also going to have another guest at the same

00:53:42.100 time who will be criticizing you. Right? Now, as a professional, I would typically go ahead

00:53:52.060 and, you know, do it just because I said I was going to do it. It's bad for him to agree and then

00:53:57.460 pull down. In retrospect, I should have pulled down. Like if, if I could replay it today, I would

00:54:04.580 have said, oh, I had agreed to be a guest. I had not agreed to be on a panel. If you want a panel

00:54:10.440 type of guest, maybe I could recommend somebody, you know, Steve Cortez. He'd be perfect because you

00:54:17.500 got to be able to get that, you know, tight little message out. And there's some people who are really

00:54:21.640 good at that and they're professionals. Why not get one of them? But instead I, I took it. And of

00:54:27.620 course it went exactly the way you think that between the time limit, between Spurconish's

00:54:32.860 questions and my critic, my point got compressed to not much of a point by the time it was over.

00:54:40.420 There isn't much, you know, counterplay. Compare that to Sam Harris, who a few years ago invited me on

00:54:47.380 his podcast. We had different views of politics, but Sam Harris is a, a reasonable, credible person

00:54:54.660 who was legitimately interested in my opinion, because it was so different from his own. And yet

00:55:00.700 thought I had at least enough possibility, if I could say that, that it was worth hearing and worth

00:55:07.220 wrestling with it. It was not time limited, not in any real way. So I, I had all the give and take

00:55:14.120 all the time I wanted, as did he. And he's a reasonable person who isn't just going to talk

00:55:19.720 over me and, you know, try to use up the time or something stupid like that. So the Sam Harris thing 0.99

00:55:25.620 made perfect sense, but the TV stuff can often be a trap. So, uh, that's my first signal that I was

00:55:33.880 over the target. I I've received other signals that this is really bad for Biden. Uh, I can't tell

00:55:41.220 you exactly what I mean by that, but here's, here's some of the initial, uh, takes on how I plan to take

00:55:49.140 Biden out of contention. Now here's the trick. You don't want to take him completely out because you

00:55:54.820 want him to actually be the top of the ticket on election day. You don't want Kamala Harris to be the 0.95

00:56:00.180 top of the ticket because she might actually look competent or they could sell her that way. 0.99

00:56:05.800 Uh, whereas Biden is going to be pretty degraded by, um, election day. So you want him to stay.

00:56:11.780 You just want him to be discredited completely. Here's one way I would do it. I would ask somebody

00:56:18.040 in the press to get a comment from an Israeli official. It could be Benjamin Netanyahu.

00:56:25.120 Could be, let's say, um, any Israeli diplomat, you know, from, from Israel and ask them this question.

00:56:35.040 Hey, you know, we're, we're having this conversation about this Charlottesville thing. Obviously you watch

00:56:40.840 American political news. Why wouldn't they? And you saw the same event and you saw the chanters who 1.00

00:56:47.800 were these tiki torches saying anti-Semitic things. Do you think that the president was referring

00:56:54.940 to the, the, the marchers as the fine people? Let's ask Israel because if Israel hasn't detected 1.00

00:57:03.200 any anti-Semitism, do you think you should? Because I would propose that Israel is very good

00:57:11.920 at detecting anti-Semitism. Would we all agree with that? Is there anybody in the world who would 0.99

00:57:18.420 disagree with the statement that Israel, especially the politicians are very good at detecting anti-Semitism?

00:57:26.820 I would say 10 out of 10. If you were to rank their ability to identify anti-Semitism, you might say

00:57:34.760 they're even over-sensitive in some situations. That would be your opinion. You know, their opinion

00:57:40.240 would differ, but you might even say that they're never going to undershoot the mark.

00:57:44.960 They might go a little further than you would go and say something was anti-Semitic when you thought,

00:57:51.720 well, it wasn't exactly anti-Semitic, but I could see how you'd see it that way.

00:57:56.080 But would they have simply failed to notice if a president said in public that neo-Nazis and white

00:58:04.760 nationalists or anybody who supported them, again, anybody who supported them, if he had said that they

00:58:11.440 were fine people, do you think Israel would have just let that go? I think that's a good question,

00:58:18.480 don't you? Somebody should ask them to comment. Put them on the record. Is it true or not?

00:58:27.180 How about this? Have you checked PolitiFact to see if the fine people hoax is true or false?

00:58:33.280 Well, I have. And you know what PolitiFact does, right? They've got this little true or false meter,

00:58:42.480 so it's like a little graphic, and they say something's completely true, the needle is over

00:58:48.060 here, or completely false, the needle's over here, or sometimes, you know, it's true-ish,

00:58:53.040 so they'll put the needle in the middle. Where do you think they put the needle for the fine people

00:58:58.400 hoax? Do you think it was, you know, somewhere in the middle, difference of opinion, maybe at the

00:59:06.280 right or the left? What do you think? How do you think they handled it? This will blow your mind.

00:59:12.600 Are you ready? They omitted it. They omitted it. They handled the hoax, so it's a topic on PolitiFact,

00:59:20.680 and they just showed the transcript. Do you know why they just showed the transcript and left out

00:59:28.800 the needle? Because otherwise, people would point to them and say, PolitiFact says it was false.

00:59:35.320 Did they say it was false? Well, they showed you the transcript, and the transcript says it's false.

00:59:41.500 It's right there. The exact words. I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.

00:59:47.720 They should be condemned completely. Those words are there. So where's my little graphic? 0.95

00:59:55.020 You see what's happening, right? This is not some weird conspiracy theory thinking. Find me anything

01:00:01.780 else that PolitiFact left off the image. Find me any. Just find me one other example where they left

01:00:09.760 off the little graphic. Now, I think somebody should point that out. Wouldn't you like to know

01:00:19.100 Israel's opinion? Wouldn't you like to know why PolitiFact is the only one they left that out?

01:00:24.580 Or there might be others, but I'd like to see those if there are. Here's another one I'd like to see

01:00:31.520 asked. And I would like to see this in the form of a cognitive test for Joe Biden. And the first one

01:00:39.720 would go like this. So question number one on Joe Biden's cognitive test. I tweeted this earlier.

01:00:46.200 If you hear someone say these words, quote, I condemn totally the white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

01:00:53.260 How do you interpret that? And there are two choices. You interpret it as somebody has condemned

01:01:00.340 those groups or to support those groups. Now, you'd say to yourself, that's kind of an easy

01:01:07.940 cognitive question because the answer is actually in the question. If the statement is, I condemn totally

01:01:16.780 white nationalists and neo-Nazis. How can you get this one wrong? Well, Joe Biden gets it wrong.

01:01:25.540 Right? This is why it's a good test for Joe Biden, because he can't get this one right. He thinks that

01:01:32.440 the words, I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis, they should be

01:01:37.340 condemned totally. He thinks those words literally mean support for those groups. So that's a fair test, 1.00

01:01:45.360 isn't it? How about this one? Question number two for Joe Biden. When the FBI, when the FDA said today

01:02:00.500 that, so this is something new from the FDA, a warning about using UV light externally. It says,

01:02:08.280 when the FDA said today that UVC lamps used for disinfection purposes may pose potential health and

01:02:16.900 safety risks, what do they mean? Is the FDA telling people don't drink bleach? Or are they saying be

01:02:26.340 cautious of UVC lamps? Which one is it? Because Joe Biden would answer this, that they mean don't drink

01:02:35.660 bleach. Because he thinks the president once suggested drinking disinfectants, which people

01:02:43.160 talk about as bleach. So Joe Biden couldn't get this right. He would think that the FDA was saying don't

01:02:49.940 drink disinfectants. When the FDA was talking about light, using the very word, this is actually the

01:02:56.760 FDA's own word, UVC lamps for disinfection purposes. Disinfection. It's the same word that the

01:03:04.640 president used when he was talking about light. All right. In a separate story. Oh, here's another

01:03:15.540 one. You want to go deep into conspiracy theory? Come with me. Come with me. I'm going to take you deep

01:03:25.460 into, holy cow, what's going on territory. Are you ready? First of all, ask the press to interview or to

01:03:35.200 put in a call for anyone to contact them and say, I was at the Charlottesville event and I'm not a

01:03:42.280 racist, but I was just there for my own purposes. And then explain why they would go to such an event.

01:03:47.300 So the press could do that, right? How hard would it be for ABC, CNN, MSNBC to just say,

01:03:55.040 hey, if you were there and you think you are one of those fine people, can you contact us?

01:04:00.600 We'd like to get you on record. Maybe verify if you're such a fine person or not. How hard would

01:04:06.560 it be to do that? It wouldn't be hard because I did that. That's how I interviewed people in the

01:04:15.320 fine people category. I just said, I'm open to talking to them and they contacted me on Twitter.

01:04:20.620 It was that easy. One tweet, all the information they need about who went there. But are you ready

01:04:27.540 to go darker? Do you want to go down a level? Do you know those pictures you saw of the marchers

01:04:35.360 with the tiki torches? Did you say to yourself, those don't look like the racists I'm used to seeing?

01:04:43.240 Did you ever have that thought? Because they seemed young and strong and, dare I say, Aryan.

01:04:52.620 And they looked, because of what they were chanting and because of the tiki torches and because it was

01:04:58.640 at night and because they had a certain look about them as being, shall we say, middle class or higher,

01:05:07.040 possibly high income? They even looked like they might have gone to prep schools. They looked like

01:05:14.040 exactly the people that would scare the shit out of you if there were many of them. In other words, 0.97

01:05:22.160 if you saw, let me put it this way, you've seen lots of video and pictures of, let's say, the KKK

01:05:28.380 gathering to do an event. Picture in your mind what the people who showed up who were avowed

01:05:35.740 racists, what do they look like? Get that image in your mind. Do they look like really well-dressed

01:05:43.620 preppies who are 25-ish or under, have good clean haircuts, and they look like they just came out of 0.99

01:05:54.480 fashion catalog? Do they look like that? Have you ever seen a group of racists in the United States

01:06:01.400 who looked exactly like Hitler youth? Huh. What if I taught you about things that are a little bit too 0.97

01:06:10.400 on the nose? A little bit too on the nose? Now let me be as clear as I can, because this is the part

01:06:18.220 that will be taken out of context. I'm sure there were real racists at an event organized by real

01:06:25.820 racists. Okay, so there's no question there were real racists there, all right? One of them killed

01:06:33.820 Heather Heyer with a car. So nobody's arguing whether there were real racists in attendance,

01:06:43.560 but what is it about real racists that they all seem to have in common? Maybe not 100%, but largely

01:06:52.300 as an average. They're not really photogenic, are they? They're not too photogenic. Hmm. So if you were

01:07:02.840 going to have a rally and your intention was to just, say, promote your point of view, how would you do it?

01:07:11.000 Well, I think you do it exactly the way the KKK does it. They would, you know, legally, if possible,

01:07:17.880 get in an event to have a protest or an event. They would gather, it would be a scraggly bunch of

01:07:25.020 people, and they would have their signs, and maybe they'd say some stuff. That's how you do it.

01:07:30.760 Is the KKK trying to scare the shit out of you? Are they? Because they are scary in the sense that, 0.99

01:07:40.200 you know, if there were more of them, you know, it would be even bigger problem. But

01:07:45.800 they don't seem to be trying to scare you.

01:07:51.280 Just fact check me on that. Except for Charlottesville,

01:07:55.860 is there, have there been other events that are these, you know, KKK,

01:08:00.620 white nationals, whatever, were they ever trying to scare you? Because the Charlottesville thing

01:08:07.720 is designed specifically to scare you. Why would they do that? What would be the point

01:08:14.240 of making themselves look scary? Because how does that help them? Did it help the people with the

01:08:22.460 tiki torches to be especially scary looking? Or would it have been enough to just gather and march

01:08:30.520 and say their little slogans? So here's the thing. Here's my challenge to the press. Hey, press,

01:08:40.920 see if you can find one of the people with the tiki torches. Because we have tons of video,

01:08:47.280 tons of photographs. We know exactly what they look like. They didn't wear masks.

01:08:56.260 How come you've never seen, somebody says fact check equals you are wrong. Why have we never seen an

01:09:03.120 interview of one of those people with the torches? Because you know what was interesting about them

01:09:07.560 is they didn't wear masks or hoods. What kind of people would walk in front of hundreds of cameras

01:09:15.200 carrying a tiki torch and saying something that would ruin the rest of their life in the United

01:09:20.400 States? And it would know that. Certainly would know it. Now when you see the the fringy KKK people

01:09:27.500 marching and you say to yourself, hey, you know, they're ruining their lives too because people can

01:09:32.720 see you. We know who you are. Well, what kind of lives did they have in the first place, right?

01:09:37.980 Is the group of the 12 KKK people who show up at some park, were they killing it in life? Was one

01:09:46.360 of them a CEO of a major company? Not so much, right? They didn't have, they don't look like a group

01:09:53.380 that's got a lot to lose. But the people marching in Charlottesville were young, probably educated,

01:10:00.600 good looking. They had a lot to lose. A lot to lose. So, so here's the thing. Why have we never

01:10:13.860 seen an interview with one of those tiki torch people? Does that raise some questions about the

01:10:20.280 press? That nobody in the press has found even one tiki torch person to just to just put on put on the 0.99

01:10:28.700 stage and put on camera and say, look, what the heck were you thinking with this tiki torch stuff?

01:10:34.520 Remember, these were people who did this in public with no masks, walking by hundreds of cameras,

01:10:41.300 as well as all the news crews. They were trying to be seen with their actual faces. You think you can't

01:10:47.820 find one of those people who would go on TV and say the same thing that they were apparently willing to say

01:10:53.820 in public, in cameras? How about that? I see people mentioning the Proud Boys in the comments.

01:11:03.860 They didn't look like the Proud Boys. So if you've seen the Proud Boys, they do have a distinctive look.

01:11:12.560 I'm not sure how to describe it, but there's definitely a look to the Proud Boys, and it wasn't

01:11:16.580 that. It didn't look like it at all. So now I'm not going to say that they were paid actors,

01:11:23.800 actors, or crisis actors. I'm just going to put the question out there. Have you ever seen a

01:11:28.920 situation where there would be so many people involved in one of the biggest stories of the

01:11:33.520 year, and nobody has talked to, A, any of the people who would claim to be fine people who

01:11:39.620 attended? Nobody? No major publication? Couldn't find anybody? I found several with no effort

01:11:46.660 whatsoever, but the major publications? No interest in actually talking to anybody who attended.

01:11:51.340 Interesting, isn't it? I think the New York Times did interview a few people, like, you know,

01:11:57.180 when it was fresh, when they were actually there. But I don't think anybody has talked to anybody

01:12:02.880 after the fact, and it would be easy to find them. So just ask yourself, what kind of a world do you

01:12:10.580 live in? And is the Charlottesville fine people hoax? Let me leave you with this final thought.

01:12:19.960 Given what you saw, do you think it was domestic? Do you think that only people from the United States,

01:12:27.420 who only have the interests of the United States, which might be different than your view,

01:12:31.880 but do you think it was only citizens of the United States who were the only ones involved

01:12:38.920 with the Charlottesville tiki torch carriers? Do you think so? Because it feels unlikely to me.

01:12:48.460 Because it was a little bit too on the nose, a little bit too camera ready. Have you noticed that

01:12:55.860 the KKK and the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis don't really have a track record before then

01:13:02.260 or after them of doing camera ready staged events? Have you noticed that they don't seem to have that

01:13:10.000 capability? But that day they had that capability. Not only did they have the capability, but they had

01:13:16.740 it really, really strongly. Do you think that all came from just some Americans?

01:13:21.880 And if Joe Biden is using the Charlottesville hoax as his main campaign theme, could it be said

01:13:30.820 that Joe Biden is outside that sphere of influence? Is Joe Biden siding with a foreign adversary?

01:13:40.760 Is there any foreign adversary who would want an event like a tiki torch carrying people? Is there any

01:13:50.520 foreign adversary who might want to see that in the United States? So ask yourself if Joe Biden is on

01:13:56.680 the side of the United States on that topic, or maybe on the side of somebody else? Now, let me say this

01:14:03.300 as clear as possible. I don't know what was up with those people. And I don't know why nobody's talked

01:14:10.800 to them. But it would be easy to debunk everything that I'm suggesting is possible. And let me be as clear

01:14:18.120 as I can with my language. I'm only suggesting things that are possible. I'm not suggesting things

01:14:23.900 that I know to happen. It's not a specific claim. I'm just saying that the news hasn't come close

01:14:33.200 to doing the news business on this topic. Because the news business would really require them to dig

01:14:40.860 in a little bit with those tiki torch guys. And why was this one so camera ready? And then also to dig

01:14:48.280 in and find out if there were some fine people there. Anybody that actually was a decent person

01:14:53.640 who attended the event and did not support the races.

01:14:57.220 somebody says, so the trolls are coming for me. So what you should see today, if what I'm saying

01:15:08.900 is as damaging as I, as it is, it is that damaging, because Biden made the gigantic strategic mistake,

01:15:17.300 maybe the mistake, possibly the biggest mistake I've ever seen a politician ever make, is that he put a

01:15:25.340 focus of his campaign on an easily disprovable hoax. Now, that might be the biggest mistake anybody's

01:15:33.140 made. And he has, on top of that, made the entire thrust of his, you know, his proposition of why he

01:15:41.000 should replace Trump, the entire thrust of it is that he's the one with good character and good judgment.

01:15:47.320 But he based his campaign on a hoax. That's easily debunked. That shows that he's either really stupid,

01:15:58.000 right? Or he's pure evil. Because if he's pushing this just for political purposes, and he knows it's 1.00

01:16:06.440 not true, he's dividing the country in the worst possible way right in front of you. And that is

01:16:12.320 completely disqualifying. But if he literally doesn't know that it didn't happen, the way he

01:16:19.080 describes it, if he doesn't know, then he's far too stupid to be president. And I don't think there's 1.00

01:16:25.200 another possibility. The Democrats would say, well, the other possibility is it really happened.

01:16:31.860 No, read the transcript. It didn't happen. Neither did the disinfectant story.

01:16:37.740 So, yeah, possibly the biggest blunder of any politician running for president of all time.

01:16:46.380 You could argue that Dukakis getting in the tank was pretty bad. Maybe George Bush, the senior, saying,

01:16:53.760 read my lips, no new taxes. Those were bad. But the fine people hoax, I think it beats them.

01:17:00.380 Because it's going to take Biden out of the election. And I'm going to see to that personally,

01:17:06.620 but not until... Not until I get rid of this guy. Oh, where was he? Nah, he disappeared.

01:17:19.620 All right. Somebody says that his speechwriters know the truth. I don't know. Don't really know.

01:17:26.900 Somebody says the tiki torches are part of the color revolutions. I don't know what that is.

01:17:39.220 I'm looking at your comments to see if I'm hitting or missing on this,

01:17:42.920 because your feedback tells me if I'm in the zone or not.

01:17:49.800 Yeah, so people think that maybe Biden is too out of it to even know.

01:17:53.560 You know, the fact that he's being praised for not being insane is crazy.

01:18:00.220 All right, that's enough for now. I'll talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - August 22, 2020

Episode 1100 Scott Adams： Cognitive Tests Biden Would Fail, How I Plan to Take Biden Out of the Race, TDS Cures, Brennan, and More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript