Real Coffee with Scott Adams - September 19, 2020


Episode 1129 Scott Adams： I Explain the McConnell Rule to Dale the Democrat, Princeton Confesses Racism, Tiny Dancer RBG


Episode Stats

Length

42 minutes

Words per Minute

143.58995

Word Count

6,093

Sentence Count

407

Misogynist Sentences

5

Hate Speech Sentences

9


Summary

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Supreme Court Justice, has passed away at the age of 85. Her death is being treated as an incurable disease, but her family and loved ones are being treated with the dignity and respect they deserved.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. The best part of the day?
00:00:17.220 Every single time. Every now and then you say to yourself, well it can't be the best part of the
00:00:22.520 day again. But it can. It really can. And here it is. And all you need to enjoy the best part
00:00:29.980 of the day is, well, I think you know. It's a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or
00:00:34.360 stein, a canteen drink or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:40.540 I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the
00:00:46.320 thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens now.
00:00:51.920 Oh, that's what I needed. That's what we all needed. So I was just watching a video in
00:01:03.200 Portland of the protesters. And apparently somebody who lived in an apartment above where the protesters
00:01:10.700 were thought it would be funny to throw eggs at the protesters from above. And I thought
00:01:17.980 to myself, how many of those windows open? Because if the protesters are in areas below lots of places
00:01:27.220 that have windows that open, well, I think we found a way to solve this problem. Sounds like if the
00:01:33.680 police won't take care of the protesters, there's nothing that chickens plus residents can't get done
00:01:39.620 together. It might, you might break a few eggs, as they say. As the saying goes, you got to break a few
00:01:46.900 eggs to stop a protest. I think that's a saying, right? All right, let's talk about the news.
00:01:55.940 The most impressive thing that happened last night is that, of course, you all know the news,
00:02:02.860 Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away last night. And one of her greatest accomplishments in a life
00:02:11.520 full of accomplishments is that in 2020, right before a major contentious election, the most divided we've
00:02:22.760 ever been in this country, for a period of about one hour, nobody in the country was a dick.
00:02:31.380 Did you notice? I turned on the TV and I thought, well, how long will it be before people start being
00:02:38.980 awful? And I thought, oh, it's actually just people saying nice things and caring about her family and
00:02:46.200 respecting her legacy, respectfully saying that maybe they disagreed with her on policy, but
00:02:52.620 she was a great woman. And it kind of felt good, didn't it? I don't know if you sampled it, but
00:03:02.600 obviously if you went to MSNBC or CNN, they would be pro-Ruth Bader Ginsburg and you'd expect it to go
00:03:09.840 that way. But if you went over to Fox, very respectful, very respectful from Hannity all the way
00:03:17.940 through. And I kind of appreciated it. I kind of appreciated it that there was just an hour
00:03:24.800 for the whole year. There was just like this one hour where we were not being dicks to each other.
00:03:31.420 Felt good. So here's a rule I would like to suggest. You know, generally speaking, that we don't like to
00:03:42.420 talk business the same day somebody died. You know, you don't want to be talking about, so, you know,
00:03:49.340 who gets the job after this person died, you know, the moment they've died. But I would like to make an
00:03:56.700 exception in this case. Number one, it appears that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is universally respected. So
00:04:06.080 nobody's going to be disrespecting her just because we're talking about what happens
00:04:09.920 in the vacancy. Number two, if somebody's last written statement on their deathbed
00:04:19.140 talks about filling their vacancy, then you can talk about it too. You can talk about it the moment
00:04:27.140 they pass because that was their, it was literally their dying wish. So her dying wish is that we talk
00:04:34.740 about and deal with her replacement. She said it specifically. So I think in this case, it is
00:04:40.980 perfectly respectful to just jump in and talk about the politics of it because that was literally her
00:04:47.580 final wish. And let's talk about all of the things. Number one, did you all see President Trump's
00:04:58.140 masterful reaction when he was told about her death? There was, if you didn't see it, he was
00:05:05.600 leaving his event. Apparently he did not hear about it during his speech because he was on stage when
00:05:10.640 it happened. And it was a long, I don't know, two hours on stage. So there was a long period where
00:05:15.780 everybody in the country, except the president of the United States, knew Ruth Bader Ginsburg had
00:05:21.760 passed. So he gets off the stage and he goes to his plane and the press pool is there. Cameras are
00:05:29.360 on. And it was one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen for a political situation. And here's
00:05:40.280 what was remarkable. Because of the setup, because it was a plane on a tarmac and it was just right after
00:05:47.240 an event. Most important person in the world, the president of the United States, most important
00:05:52.740 event. The lighting and the set were perfect for this. It looked just like a movie set, just perfectly
00:06:02.460 lit. In the background, quite easily heard, was Elton John's Tiny Dancer. Tiny Dancer? Are you
00:06:13.760 kidding me? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about, what was she, five feet tall or something? Very small. I
00:06:21.100 mean, when you think of her, you think of her as tiny. Tiny and female. And Tiny Dancer is playing in
00:06:28.720 the background. When the president comes up and is told, you know, he says, he says, what? And then he
00:06:36.200 gave what I would say would be very, I would say, an empathy-filled response that looked genuine. And
00:06:47.860 he looked like just a real human being who was just expressing his sadness. He said he felt sad. And
00:06:55.200 that she was an amazing, amazing woman. And he said she had an amazing life, etc. Now, you don't expect
00:07:03.540 the president to be empathetic, to show real concern, and to be respectful. You know, you kind of, you
00:07:14.940 think he's in rally mode and campaign mode and RBG was on the other side politically. So you'd think
00:07:23.080 that maybe he wouldn't give a perfect response, but he kind of did. And I think that, I saw at least
00:07:30.460 one hardcore anti-Trumper even say, okay, got to admit, got to admit, that was very presidential.
00:07:40.960 So let me add the fun part of this. You ready? Do you believe that the president walked all the way
00:07:50.240 from the stage to the airplane without anybody telling him that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died?
00:08:00.460 Really? Do you really think? Somebody says she was 4'6". Is that true? Do you really think he made it
00:08:10.960 all the way from the stage? Now, the stage was really near the airplane. So you can see the stage
00:08:17.180 and the airplane, it's on the tarmac, literally on the tarmac. So you only have to get down and walk,
00:08:23.300 I don't know, maybe, maybe a few plane lengths to get to the plane. But do you don't think anybody
00:08:31.040 talked to him when he got off the stage? Nobody shouted it out? You know, the first person he talked
00:08:39.200 to didn't say, I just want to give you a heads up, RGB passed away. Because you know, everybody else knew
00:08:45.040 it. There was nobody else, nobody there didn't know it by the time he got off the stage. So you have
00:08:51.620 two possibilities, and they're both awesome. Okay? There are only two possibilities. And one is just
00:08:59.620 more awesome than the other. You almost can't tell which is more awesome. One is that what you saw is
00:09:06.020 exactly what happened. He was surprised. He gave you a genuine reaction that was very human.
00:09:12.340 And I would say he acquitted himself quite well, presidentially. That would be awesome.
00:09:22.640 I think we could hope that that happened. The other possibility is that he knew it was coming.
00:09:29.920 And therefore, he gave the best answer you could give because he had a little heads up.
00:09:35.520 If that happened, and he pulled it off, it's also pretty awesome. Now, you could argue and say,
00:09:44.460 well, but that's not fair, because, you know, he's misleading us by acting as if he's just hearing
00:09:49.520 it. It's a political campaign. He's in the middle of a political campaign. Nobody is telling the truth
00:09:57.380 about anything from now, who knows, until election day at least. But you don't really expect the same
00:10:03.700 standard. At least I don't in an election. You expect that everything is political. Our system is
00:10:11.960 designed that way. It's fine. Everything can be political for a while. You know, that doesn't kill
00:10:16.940 anybody. You can be political during a political season. There could be maybe a little smoke and
00:10:23.120 mirrors. Could be a little bit of shading reality a little bit to get the best picture. So here's my
00:10:30.520 take on it. Whether that was a little bit planned or completely spontaneous, it was still damn good.
00:10:40.220 Right? Because, first of all, even if it was a little bit planned, even if he had a heads up,
00:10:48.060 that doesn't mean his reaction wasn't real. You know, his reaction might have been the actual
00:10:53.100 genuine feeling. He just waited to give it. So no matter what it was, real or a little bit
00:11:01.200 planned, it was still awesome. It was a really good job because we just expect our president to act a
00:11:08.980 certain way, and I think he did it. I would like to explain to you the so-called McConnell rule.
00:11:17.400 You'll be hearing a lot about this. It has to do with the circumstances in which you would delay
00:11:24.960 a nomination or a confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. And it's based on history. And since it's
00:11:35.220 been done once before, McConnell delayed Obama's nomination. And I want to explain it to you,
00:11:43.380 but I'd like to explain it to Dale the Democrat. Have you met Dale? Dale? Dale, can you come over
00:11:50.500 here? Here I am. What can I do for you? Dale, I'd like to explain to you the McConnell rule. Have
00:11:59.100 you heard of it? It's about when you do or do not replace the Supreme Court justice. Let me just show
00:12:06.100 you this, Dale, on the whiteboard. So there are two important elements of the McConnell rule.
00:12:16.340 Rule number one, and these are things that would cause you to delay a nomination that normally you
00:12:25.220 wouldn't delay. So delaying is unusual. But on these two conditions, McConnell says you could or should.
00:12:32.140 It's an election year like now. This is an election year. So that that fits, right? The first thing
00:12:39.940 fits. It's an election year. And this is important, Dale. Dale, are you listening to this? This is
00:12:45.380 important. And not or, not or, and both of these have to be true, that the president and the senate are
00:12:54.680 opposite parties. Now, the reason for that is if the senate and the president are opposite parties,
00:13:00.760 you don't quite know what you're going to get. There's a little more uncertainty. But if they
00:13:06.520 were the same party, well, you know, just go ahead, because you're going to get what you want anyway.
00:13:13.080 So, Dale, do you understand this? It's two requirements. They both have to be met. And
00:13:19.520 because the president and the senate at the moment are the same party, that the second one is not met.
00:13:26.400 So the McConnell rule, one of the things applies, it's an election year, but the other important part
00:13:34.160 doesn't apply. Do you understand that, Dale? Absolutely. You're being a hypocrite.
00:13:41.960 Okay, I'm not sure what that means. Why am I being a hypocrite? Because McConnell delayed the
00:13:49.400 confirmation for Obama, but he's not going to do it for Trump. That is hypocrites.
00:13:56.400 Okay, well, but there's a rule here. You see, there's a rule, and there are two things,
00:14:05.020 and they're not satisfied. That's why it's different, Dale. You see that it's different,
00:14:09.940 right? It's an election year. Okay, election year. Election year would be one, one of the two things.
00:14:19.840 You see, there are two things here. That would be one of them. I'm going to burn down everything.
00:14:24.840 If they nominate somebody, and they approve it, we're going to burn down the whole country,
00:14:31.540 whole left-hand country. Burn it down. Okay, but why are you doing that? I'm confused. Is it because
00:14:40.200 you don't like the McConnell rule, or you're just going to ignore the McConnell rule? No,
00:14:46.860 I'm using the McConnell rule. I'm using it just like you did. Same thing. It's an election year.
00:14:53.640 Bottom egg. Okay, but do you see this? This part's here. Do you see this, Dale? It's going to burn
00:15:03.860 down the whole country. It's going to burn it down. All right, Dale.
00:15:08.320 Dale. Dale, could you come over here? We just need to talk. Would you give me a minute? I need
00:15:18.120 to talk to Dale. Dale, could you come over here? Present. Dale.
00:15:37.340 Dale. Dale. All right, so that is how you explain the McConnell rule to a Democrat. I'd like to think
00:15:50.760 there's another way to do it, where you just explain it, and then they understand it, and then they act
00:15:56.940 as though they understand it. But that doesn't seem to be an option in an election year. So here's the
00:16:04.260 question. Will McConnell go ahead? And he said he'd have the vote. But does he have the votes? Do we
00:16:11.940 know that yet? I don't think we know if he has the votes, right? So if he doesn't have the votes,
00:16:17.500 maybe not. I also don't know if Trump would have an advantage if he nominated somebody, or would he have
00:16:27.620 more of an advantage if he didn't? It's hard to score this one, right? Imagine, if you will, just a thought
00:16:38.720 experiment. Suppose several senators say, because I think Lindsey Graham has said he's on record as
00:16:45.800 saying that he wouldn't nominate somebody in this situation, because Lindsey Graham is also looking at
00:16:51.760 just the election year. He's on video saying that at least two different times, he has promised that he
00:17:00.600 would not be part of nominating somebody in an election year. So we'll see if he sticks with that.
00:17:08.000 But if you're President Trump, would you be better off getting the nomination through,
00:17:14.680 or would you be better off not getting it through? It's hard to know, isn't it? Because if you were
00:17:23.060 trying to get people to show up to the voting booth, what would get them there more? Let's say
00:17:29.340 you're a Republican, and you're on the fence about voting. You're like, ah, I'm busy that day. It's just
00:17:36.460 one vote, and I don't need to vote. And you have two situations. One, one is that, that Ginsburg has been
00:17:45.780 replaced, and that there's somebody in the job, and now there's a commanding conservative majority in the
00:17:53.000 court. Do you need to vote if you have a commanding conservative majority, and that's what you cared about?
00:18:00.220 Well, you might say, well, maybe I'll get another, another judge if, if Trump gets elected. But you
00:18:08.300 might say to yourself, you might, you know, to judge advantage. You know, you got a little, got a little
00:18:20.120 advantage there. So yeah, that's good enough. So I don't know how, how voters will react if
00:18:27.580 they'll be more or less motivated based on whether there is or is not somebody filling that, that
00:18:32.740 position. I would think if I were President Trump, this is what I would prefer. This is just a
00:18:39.480 preliminary thought. I think there are smarter people like, you know, if, if an hour from now you
00:18:45.380 see Karl Rove disagree with me, you should probably just take Karl Rove's opinion. Because I'm a little
00:18:53.480 bit out of my depth here, just a little bit. And here's the thought. We have a million topics that
00:19:01.960 people will be thinking about from the coronavirus to the economy to foreign relations and everything
00:19:07.360 else. But if there's an open Supreme Court seat, and, and it's being held open for the next president,
00:19:17.380 under that condition, that's the only thing that matters. Coronavirus, it's not going to matter much
00:19:24.440 if there's an open Supreme Court seat. All you're going to care about is that seat. Every conservative
00:19:30.140 who might have been, you know, angry at the president for whatever coronavirus stuff is going to say,
00:19:36.120 okay, I didn't like that coronavirus stuff, but I really care about this Supreme Court seat.
00:19:41.440 So what it would do if he left it open, if Trump left it open intentionally, number one,
00:19:48.720 he'd look like a good guy. He wouldn't look like a dictator. But I don't think it's his personality to
00:19:56.240 wait. You know, my guess is that Trump's personality is that if something's available, he's going to take
00:20:02.920 it. And so if there's any chance he can get this through, I think he'd push it. But if he didn't,
00:20:10.900 and he just completely fooled everybody and said, hey, let's, imagine if he said, let's honor,
00:20:18.460 let's honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg by leaving it open. Well, it would just blow your head off,
00:20:25.280 wouldn't it? Because number one, you wouldn't feel like a dictator. Number two, it would seem so fair
00:20:31.300 that you would be confused. Like, who is this? But it would also take every other topic off the table,
00:20:39.480 and it would only be the Supreme Court effectively. And does the president have an advantage if the
00:20:46.740 only thing you're talking about is the Supreme Court? Maybe. I'd have to see the polling on this.
00:20:53.440 I don't know how you'd really be able to suss that out. But my feeling is that conservatives quite care
00:20:59.100 more about the Supreme Court than the Democrats do. So I think he'd actually get an advantage,
00:21:06.700 but it'd be a risky play. I know. And it's going to set a precedent either way. Here's a question for
00:21:16.160 you. It seems that the whole country has this idea in their head that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be
00:21:25.180 replaced with a woman. To which I say, if that standard becomes something that, although it's not a law,
00:21:34.340 it's not a constitutional requirement, but if it becomes sort of hardened into a standard,
00:21:41.660 is it constitutional? It feels completely unconstitutional to decide that one of the seats
00:21:51.280 seats or any of the seats on the Supreme Court have to go to a certain gender or a certain ethnicity.
00:21:57.620 Isn't that the opposite of what the Supreme Court should be helping us do? Shouldn't they be the one
00:22:03.400 place where they just don't look at that? Now, I happen to be completely in favor of diversity in
00:22:10.500 the Supreme Court. So if you gave me a choice, of course, I would rather have diversity and get a good
00:22:17.400 mix of male, female, get some other ethnicities in there. I think that'd be great because it gives
00:22:24.820 you more credibility for your decisions. But even though I would like that outcome, and even though
00:22:32.340 there's a historical precedent for holding a seat open for a certain gender in particular,
00:22:39.560 isn't it completely against the Constitution to do that? You know, if somebody went into
00:22:48.320 for a job interview at a corporation, and the corporation said, you know, you're very qualified,
00:22:55.520 but you're a man, and we're just not picking men. Would that be illegal? If somebody went in for a job
00:23:05.420 working for the court, let's say they wanted a job clerking for one of the Supreme Court justices,
00:23:12.620 and they go in for the interview, and whoever's doing the interviewing says,
00:23:16.640 you know, we really want a woman for this job. Would that be illegal? It wouldn't, would it?
00:23:26.540 So it seems to me that having a gender requirement for the Supreme Court is the most unconstitutional
00:23:35.480 thing you could possibly come up with, even though, as I say, I think, you know, we'd be better off with
00:23:42.380 a diverse court. It's just, it's kind of creepy that the only way you can get there is by violating
00:23:47.800 the Constitution. You know, no, no better way to do that. All right. Already, there are crazy people,
00:23:55.820 and by that, I mean people on the left, who are talking about burning down the country,
00:24:01.240 if that seat gets filled. What would happen if you just took all their energy out of them and just
00:24:07.240 said, you know what, why don't we just wait? All these people who think they're going to
00:24:12.300 burn down the country and take to the streets and all that, what if you just said, yeah, you know,
00:24:17.260 you've got a good point. We'll just wait. It would take all the energy out. It would be interesting.
00:24:24.960 All right. Remember I told you that it would be theoretically possible to do a gigantic prank
00:24:33.260 on the protesters in whatever city you are protesting, because they're loosely organized.
00:24:39.440 And I said, all you'd have to do is get a charismatic young black woman, because that would
00:24:46.220 be the highest credibility within the, within the protester community. A young black woman would
00:24:52.540 just automatically be sort of the, the, the top of the ranks. And if that, if that person was a
00:24:59.320 prankster, hypothetically, had a megaphone, they could just walk into the protest and start getting the
00:25:05.540 protesters to say or do anything they wanted, no matter how ridiculous. And yesterday I saw a video
00:25:14.300 of a young black woman with a megaphone who was leading a bunch of protesters. I forget which city
00:25:20.900 might've been, I don't know, probably Portland or something. And here's what she was getting them to
00:25:28.420 chant. So the woman with the megaphone was telling them to chant behind her. And they were, and the
00:25:36.340 chant was this, who do we protect? And then the, then the callback was black criminals. Who do we
00:25:43.560 protect? Black criminals. Now, is that real? Now people came in and said, Scott, Scott, Scott,
00:25:52.800 you think that was a prank, but there's other video of other times when this is actually one of
00:25:58.980 their standard, this is an actual thing that they say. It's not a joke. They actually say,
00:26:06.000 who do we protect? Black criminals. And it's both white and black people who are marching
00:26:11.180 and they're all black criminals. Now, do you think that's real? Now here's, here's the best part.
00:26:20.780 It could be real. It could be, but it is identical. It is identical to a joke. The, you know, I've
00:26:34.620 talked about the parody crossover where reality and parody, you know, merge and you just can't tell
00:26:40.320 them apart. Can you tell this apart? You tell me the truth. If you saw this out of context and you
00:26:47.940 saw the, you know, them, uh, doing this chant, would you think that was serious? Cause I don't
00:26:54.360 think you would. Trump tweeted, uh, Trump tweeted what? Did he tweet that, uh, very, that very clip?
00:27:06.920 Anyway, um, whether or not that's real, I tweeted it like it was not real. Cause I think it's funnier
00:27:12.720 to treat it like it's not real. Um, if black lives matter wanted to completely discredit
00:27:19.660 themselves. Yeah. And the, the woman with the megaphone who is leading the chant was laughing,
00:27:26.140 but that alone doesn't mean it's not real. All right. Um, there's an even funnier story. This is
00:27:36.040 the, this is the best story of 2020. Are you ready? Pretty big claim, right? 2020 is a wild, wild
00:27:44.440 year. I, this is my claim. The following story that I'm going to tell you that is in the news
00:27:51.120 is the best story of 2020 because it captures 2020 the best. You ready? This, this is a winner.
00:27:59.440 You're going to be happy about this. The, uh, education department, you know, the, the government's,
00:28:06.720 uh, department of education, they opened a, an investigation into Princeton university.
00:28:12.920 Now, do you know why they opened an investigation into Princeton university? It was because the
00:28:20.600 president wrote a document, some kind of public document in which he, he said that Princeton,
00:28:27.960 um, has racism embedded in the school. So the president of Princeton declared that his own
00:28:34.880 school had systemic racism. Now, what's the first thing you say about that? It's like, well,
00:28:39.180 that's nothing, right? Doesn't every left leaning person believe that every major institution has
00:28:47.160 systemic racism? And the answer is, yeah, probably every left leaning person does believe exactly
00:28:52.400 that. So would it be a surprise that the president of Princeton believes that Princeton still has some
00:28:58.320 systemic racism that it needs to deal with? And the answer is that's not surprising. Here's the
00:29:04.140 surprising part. Uh, this couldn't have made me happier. Um, that the, uh, the department of the,
00:29:14.980 the education department, uh, is launching an investigation because the, because they're under
00:29:21.700 suspicion that they're racist. That's because the government, uh, the government can't give, uh,
00:29:30.820 federal money to a college unless that college is non-racist, but Princeton just labeled itself
00:29:38.700 racist and therefore made them ineligible for federal funds. And the funny part is that the
00:29:46.120 federal government acted on it. That's the funny part, right? You'd expect them just to say, just to
00:29:51.640 shake their heads and say, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, the, everybody in the left thinks everything's
00:29:55.860 racist. That just doesn't mean anything, but the, but the department of education decided to treat
00:30:02.920 it like it was serious because they treated it seriously. If, if the president of Princeton is
00:30:09.840 going to say publicly and seriously, and no joke about it, Princeton is a racist organization,
00:30:16.640 uh, then the federal government is required to stop funding them. Uh, so there's your Ivy League
00:30:28.580 of education. Uh, that's just the best story. Now, you know, I don't have a preference about how
00:30:35.340 that turns out, but just the mere fact that that even happened is great. Uh, uh, Andres, uh,
00:30:42.380 back house, uh, pointed out that Spain is about to, uh, according to the latest statistics on
00:30:48.480 coronavirus, Spain is about to surpass the United States again, in terms of confirmed COVID-19 deaths
00:30:55.660 per million population on a seven day rolling average. So we're going to see countries, you know,
00:31:03.760 uh, having more infections and trading places and stuff. So I keep reminding you, wait, wait until the,
00:31:11.720 uh, the, uh, the end of the, the end of this coronavirus to know who did a good job and who
00:31:17.380 didn't. Um, there was, oh, there's also, uh, there was a comparison of countries that in our world
00:31:31.560 and data countries with the lowest infections also had the best economies. So there was a tweet that
00:31:38.400 pointed out to that, you know, everybody thought there was going to be a trade-off between how many
00:31:43.720 people get infected and how well the economy does, right? That was the basic understanding
00:31:49.180 that you could either have a good economy or you could be good on infections, but you couldn't be
00:31:55.980 good on both. And what they found with their data is that the countries who had the lowest infections
00:32:02.400 also had the best economies. So therefore, if the ones with the lowest infections also had the best
00:32:10.520 economies or the least damage to their economy, wouldn't it be true that the best thing you can
00:32:16.820 do for your economy is to reduce the number of infections, right? Common sense, just logically.
00:32:24.480 If, if, if all the ones with low infections also have the best economies, then managing your
00:32:31.920 infections is the way to keep your economy strong, right? No, no, doesn't make any sense at all. Here's
00:32:40.680 what's wrong with it. You can't compare different countries because the countries that didn't have
00:32:49.240 many infections, did they need to close their economy? No. If you didn't have many infections,
00:32:57.020 you didn't need to close your economy. So doesn't it make sense that countries that did it either by
00:33:02.980 luck or by skill had low infections? Of course they had a good economy, but the real proper, the proper
00:33:10.820 comparison would be country to itself, which you can't do. What you'd want to see is the United States
00:33:18.000 with a shutdown versus the United States without a shutdown, and you can't study that. It can't be
00:33:24.980 studied because you only did one of them. You didn't do both. You only did one of those things. So you
00:33:31.640 don't know what would the economy have been if we shut down more aggressively. You don't know. So this
00:33:38.740 is another example of data that looks like it would be useful, but if you go just a little bit, a little bit
00:33:47.140 down into the detail, you see it's just completely meaningless. It is virtually random data. So it means
00:33:55.360 nothing. Let's see. There's a story that didn't get a lot of plague, a little plague yesterday, that the post office
00:34:06.860 was getting ready to mail out, because there was a government plan, to mail out five masks to each
00:34:13.600 address in April so that everybody would have five masks reusable. And that got canceled. The reason
00:34:23.500 given for why it was canceled is that the government didn't want to panic people by sending them masks
00:34:31.480 because they might panic. Do you believe that? You shouldn't. You should not believe this story.
00:34:40.320 If you've ever smelled fake news, smell that. That post office story has fake news written all over it.
00:34:51.220 And here's your cue. How do you know it's fake news? Well, if somebody said,
00:34:58.200 the president told me we don't want to panic people, and that's why we're not going to mail them
00:35:04.100 out, that might be real, especially if you had two sources that heard it. If you had one anonymous
00:35:10.680 source, then you wouldn't trust that. But suppose you don't even have an anonymous source who's saying
00:35:18.240 that somebody told them to do it. Suppose it's just an anonymous source who simply speculates that the
00:35:25.460 reason was they didn't want anybody to panic. Who said it? Where did that come from? Who came up
00:35:32.600 with the idea that the reason to stop it was to stop the panic? That's not an evidence. This is
00:35:40.600 clearly fake news. Now, could it become real news? Yes, it could. It could become real news if we found
00:35:49.380 an actual source. Maybe somebody went on camera and said, yeah, you know, I was standing right there.
00:35:54.740 The president said, write to me personally, cancel this because we don't want to panic anybody.
00:36:00.880 And two people heard it. That would be news. But somebody in the post office speculating about why
00:36:08.600 something happened, that's not news. That is fake news. Now, what would be any other reason that the
00:36:17.700 post office would plan to mail five masks to everybody and then change their mind? Can you
00:36:24.220 think of any reason that that might have happened? I can. How about the fact that nobody had a problem
00:36:31.840 getting a mask on their own? Have you seen any situation even once where somebody said, I want to
00:36:39.920 wear a mask, but I can't get one? No, because it was permissive. You could put a, you know, bandana
00:36:46.720 on you or whatever. And, you know, mask costs practically nothing and lots of businesses hand
00:36:52.240 them out. So the more, the more likely reason that they canceled it. Yeah, it was, it was expensive
00:36:58.260 and it didn't buy them much because everybody had no problems getting a mask. So somebody says,
00:37:06.900 what about knowing about sizes? Oh, I think you could do a universal size. You know, the, the, the,
00:37:13.320 the kind that I use would fit pretty much anybody. All right. So I'd call that fake news. Uh, of
00:37:19.300 course, my, my smart Democrat friend sent this article to me and said, well, you can't doubt this
00:37:25.580 one here. Here's a caught, caught that Trump red handed this time. I haven't responded to him yet, but
00:37:33.440 no, he did not catch anybody red handed. It's just fake news.
00:37:38.080 Um, all right. Yeah. Toilet paper would have been appreciated as somebody says in the comments
00:37:46.460 there. Um, all right. Sarah Carter is, Sarah, Sarah Carter is reporting that there is a Senate
00:37:56.660 Homeland Security Committee is going to release a report like in about a week about, uh, Joe
00:38:02.280 Biden's son, um, and Ukraine and Burisma, I guess. So that might be a bombshell. What do
00:38:11.600 you think? Do you think that a report about, um, Joe Biden's son and Burisma, do you think
00:38:20.100 that that will be a bombshell report or not a bombshell report? This will be a test to see
00:38:26.520 how well you have been following the news. The answer is it will be a bombshell report.
00:38:35.160 Even if, even if there's nothing in it because that's how we do it now. So today, the fact that
00:38:45.680 a report exists makes it a bombshell and the people who want it to be a bombshell will simply go on
00:38:53.120 television and they'll tweet and they'll say, my God, what a bombshell. It's a smoking gun. It
00:38:58.760 shows that bad things happened with the Bidens in Ukraine. Right. And that, that will happen
00:39:06.520 no matter what's in the report. The report could say, you know, we started to do a report, but we
00:39:12.900 got bored and it didn't seem important. So we're just going to write one page that says we didn't do
00:39:17.300 anything. And that's the whole report. What would, what would, uh, half of the country report
00:39:24.940 about the report? They'd say it's a bombshell. It's a bombshell. Yeah. We, we didn't see this
00:39:31.640 coming, but it's so bad in Ukraine. They couldn't even find it all. So they had to give up and they
00:39:37.700 will just mischaracterize it. So it doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter which side creates
00:39:43.520 the bombshell report. The, the side that wants to interpret it as a bombshell is just going to go
00:39:49.980 ahead and do it. It doesn't matter what's in it. It's completely irrelevant. What is in the report?
00:39:55.960 It will just be a bombshell. And will the Democrats then react to this bombshell and say, oh, you got us
00:40:04.780 now. You know, we didn't believe this Burisma stuff, but now we've got this bombshell report. Well,
00:40:10.940 that changes everything. And Joe Biden, you're going to have to step down. Do you think that'll
00:40:15.020 happen? No, that won't happen. Even if there is a bombshell, that report could say that, uh, Joe
00:40:22.740 Biden himself was taking a bribe and it's on camera, it's on video. It wouldn't matter no matter what it
00:40:30.860 is. The entire left of the country is going to say that didn't happen. And then you'll say, uh,
00:40:37.520 it's right here on video and there's this whole report and you know, there's a whole task force
00:40:42.260 and you know, yeah, it happened. We got lots of witnesses and video. And then the left will say,
00:40:48.660 no, it didn't. And that's it. We we've reached a point where, where one side can simply say,
00:40:55.880 no, that didn't happen. What can you do? Because once you don't have a functioning news in your
00:41:04.820 country, that we don't have like a credible news entity, you can make any claim because the news
00:41:13.500 that agrees with you will back you up. Oh yeah, no, there was nothing in there. We read it all day
00:41:18.480 long. There was nothing in there. And the other side will make up their version and they'll report
00:41:23.820 it like it's true. All right. Um, just looking at your comments, the Biden Burisma bombshell,
00:41:34.820 the three B's build back better. Um, and I would say that Joe Biden did relatively well reading his
00:41:45.140 statement about, uh, Ginsburg when he got off the plane, because you do wonder, can Biden spontaneously
00:41:52.720 respond to questions? That's, it's a question, right? If he's not prepared, but it looked like
00:41:58.420 somebody wrote him a prepared speech and he stood in front of people and he read it.
00:42:03.700 So it wasn't a very high level of difficulty. All right. Um, yeah, they said that about the
00:42:11.320 Strauss test text messages. They said about everything.
00:42:13.840 Tesla. Tesla. What about Tesla? That seems like a question, but I don't know what it is. All
00:42:23.340 right. That's all I got for now. I'll talk to you later. Bye.