Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1152 Scott Adams： ACB, Found Ballots, Trump's Immunity, Court Packing, Extremism, Pelosi Blunders

00:00:00.400 Bum, bum, bum, bum. Where have I been? It's like I'm late. I can't be late. No, that just wouldn't be right.

00:00:10.220 Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. Hey, everybody. Come on in. Come on in. It's time for the best part of the day.

00:00:19.820 Yeah. I tell you that every time, and every time you're a little bit skeptical, and then by the end of the day, you say,

00:00:26.380 he was right again. It was the best part of my day. And all you need to enjoy it to its fullest,

00:00:34.120 to its maximum potential, is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen junk or flask or

00:00:39.340 vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the

00:00:46.200 unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better,

00:00:50.880 including your Supreme Court nominations. It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.

00:00:57.720 Go.

00:01:01.780 Oh, yes. Divine.

00:01:05.940 Let me begin by talking about your entertainment options, which are looking good, by the way.

00:01:13.000 I've told you before that I don't like fiction, but I'm going to give you some nonfiction and some

00:01:20.900 onefiction that is totally worth watching. Are you ready?

00:01:26.660 Star Trek Discovery is coming back for its third season. Come on. You care a little bit.

00:01:33.440 Now, unfortunately, you have to have CBS All Access, so it's a subscription service.

00:01:38.580 And I'll tell you what's unusual about this. If you're like me in this particular way,

00:01:46.680 it may have annoyed you that there's a trend in science fiction where they remove all the male

00:01:52.820 lead characters, because traditionally it was a male lead for science fiction, and they replace them with

00:01:59.460 women and women of color. And you say to yourself, I get what you're trying to do.

00:02:05.360 I'm all for the diversity. I like the inclusiveness of it. But it feels like when you try to put too

00:02:12.660 hard the social filter on stuff, it can step on the creative part. And so when I'd watch it, I'd think,

00:02:20.460 you're just trying too hard to be inclusive, which is good. Inclusivity, all great. But sometimes

00:02:29.340 it's a tough fit into an existing property. And of course, Star Trek did a version of that,

00:02:35.760 or the Star Trek Discovery did, by casting the lead as a woman of color. And when I first turned it on,

00:02:43.820 I said to myself, oh, it's going to be another one of these shows where no offense to the actors or any

00:02:51.080 of the people involved. There's no insult, nothing going on here that's negative. It's just, I just

00:02:58.980 wanted to watch a show, right? I didn't need to be preached to. I don't need to be fixed. I just

00:03:07.100 wanted to watch a Star Trek show. And then I turned it on, and I'm going to give them credit. The actress

00:03:15.180 that they cast in the lead role, who plays the part of Michael Burnham. So here's the part that

00:03:21.420 is funny. Without any explanation, they made the lead character in this Star Trek. I think she's

00:03:30.340 black. She's a woman of color. And her first name is Michael, spelled exactly like a guy. And I'd love

00:03:39.840 to hear the story behind that. Was it originally written for a man, and they just said, let's just

00:03:45.580 keep the name? Or is it a wink to what they were doing? Is it a way to tell the audience, okay, okay,

00:03:54.440 audience, you know, maybe we're trying a little too hard to make this inclusive, but we're going to

00:04:00.720 wink at you and just keep the name of the character, a man's name. And I don't know. I don't know what the

00:04:06.380 real story is behind it. But here's the punchline to it all. The lead actress that they picked is

00:04:13.500 really good. She's really good. And if you watch the thing, you do come away saying, okay, they picked

00:04:20.580 the right person. The casting was actually really, really good. And the show is tremendous. So I love

00:04:28.960 the show. You have to be a Star Trek fan to like it. But I would say it's maybe one of the best.

00:04:35.360 It's definitely movie quality production. And more on entertainment. Did you know that if you

00:04:43.000 have the premium version of YouTube, that you can listen to content such as this while you're using

00:04:51.120 your other apps? So I was informed yesterday that you have to have the premium version or it doesn't

00:04:56.720 work. I didn't know that when I first tweeted about it. But if you have premium YouTube, which you

00:05:02.120 should have, because I would say YouTube is the best entertainment platform right now of

00:05:08.740 all of all entertainment, TV, movies, streaming, Netflix, if you counted them all, they don't

00:05:15.820 really add up to anything close to what YouTube is as an entertainment platform. And that feature

00:05:23.680 to be able to use your other apps is important. So get the premium if you want to have that feature.

00:05:28.500 Sure. Here's some more entertainment. And this was really good. All right. The plot against the

00:05:36.260 president by Lee Smith. Now, you may have heard of it. It goes through the whole story of Devin

00:05:44.100 Noonan and the Russia collusion. Now, you're going to say to yourself the same thing that I said to

00:05:50.760 myself. I said, Scott, you are sick of that story, because you've been hearing nothing but

00:05:57.420 Russia collusion, blah, blah, blah, for months and months and months and years. In fact, I was

00:06:05.400 completely blown away by how much I didn't know about that story. And the stuff you don't know

00:06:12.360 really matters. And while I knew all the parts, so in a general way, I knew this part happened,

00:06:21.980 this person was involved, something generally like this happened. But when you see it all put together

00:06:28.380 in a package, and then you can see the connections and how everything is connected to everything else,

00:06:34.060 it is absolutely mind-blowingly, you won't even be the same after you watch it. This is one of those

00:06:44.300 pieces of content that when you walk away, you say to yourself, all right, I'm now a different person.

00:06:51.820 I would say that it changed me. It literally changed me. Because going into it, I would have said to

00:06:59.240 myself, yeah, lots of people made sketchy decisions. I think in some way, you know, they're bad people,

00:07:06.900 we should avoid that. I had sort of general feelings about that whole thing. But wow, when you see it

00:07:14.400 packaged, and you realize what real people did, people that were elected, people who were put in

00:07:23.700 important positions, when you see it all together, it will change you. Suddenly, what you thought were

00:07:31.540 conspiracy theories before, sometimes you'll hear a story, and you'll say to yourself, yeah, right on the

00:07:38.700 surface, you know, that's not true. Because people don't do that kind of thing. That only happens in

00:07:46.340 movies. In the real world, nobody's going to put together this complicated plot to overthrow the

00:07:52.620 government. Come on, that's not gonna watch the watch the film. It's called plot again, the plot against the

00:08:02.720 president, you can get it on Vimeo, I think it's on Amazon. And pay for it, make sure you pay for it. No, don't

00:08:10.860 pick up an illegal one. And it's mind blowing. It's absolutely mind blowing. Cernovich is in it, does a great job.

00:08:19.020 Here's a poll I'd like to see. I'd like to see a poll over time of how afraid citizens are of

00:08:29.160 coronavirus. Because there must be a change. And I'd like to see if President Trump's persuasion on

00:08:37.020 this is any part of that change. But wouldn't you like to know how afraid were you in March? How afraid

00:08:43.520 were you in April, May, June? Did anything change? Was it always about the same? Did it go down? Did it

00:08:49.820 go up? Because you'll learn more about it. I would love to see that poll. Because the president's

00:08:57.520 persuasion on this, I judge it to be powerful. But you can't really tell if persuasion is working until

00:09:05.140 you measure it somehow. So you can be really, really experienced with persuasion. And you still

00:09:12.700 don't know exactly how well something is working. You just have to measure it. Because you could be

00:09:18.720 fooled. Here's a question. How many people have gotten coronavirus and then also got

00:09:33.180 Regeneron and maybe Remdesivir, one or the other or both? How many people died anyway after receiving

00:09:44.600 Regeneron or Remdesivir or both? I don't know if they ever use them both. So that's open question.

00:09:52.380 Because I think they're used at different phases. So if you're using the Regeneron, maybe you never

00:09:57.460 need to use the Remdesivir. If you're using the Remdesivir, it's probably because you didn't use

00:10:02.520 the Regeneron. They're sort of different. I think they're different phases. Fact check me on that.

00:10:07.880 But how many people are dying if they get that? Don't you want to know? Because I guess we don't

00:10:15.440 have quite enough. Well, not quite enough. We don't have nearly enough Regeneron, but they're making it as

00:10:20.960 fast as they can. Are we close to a point where your survival was, let's say your survival rate was

00:10:29.660 99 point something. Have we taken that survival rate, which was already quite good, and moved it

00:10:37.020 to way better? Because that's what drugs do, right? They don't add nothing. So wouldn't you like to see

00:10:44.000 the untreated coronavirus death rate and compare that to the treated coronavirus death rate? Because

00:10:53.740 I got to tell you, and this obviously makes a difference on your, do you have health care? And

00:11:00.280 you know, what's your economic situation? Do you have to go to work eight hours a day? So not everybody

00:11:06.760 can do what I say I would do, but the number will grow. And what I would do is this. The first moment

00:11:13.980 that I felt a symptom that I thought was actually coronavirus, I would be on top of my doctor

00:11:22.180 threatening that if I don't get Regeneron in the next 10 minutes, I'm going to, I'm going to find a

00:11:28.480 new doctor. And you would probably do the same. Now, I have to admit, this comes very close to the

00:11:37.900 category of white privilege. It's certainly a rich person privilege, because I can go into my health

00:11:44.500 care provider and, you know, shake the walls and cause trouble and say, you're going to give me

00:11:49.320 Regeneron, or I'm going to go to another doctor, but I'm not going to not have Regeneron by the end of

00:11:55.220 today. So let me, let me assure you that I'm going to be having Regeneron, and it's going to happen by

00:12:02.220 the end of today. You can either be part of it or not. That's the only option you're getting as my

00:12:07.240 doctor, because I'm going to get this yet. This, this, this is going in my body. It's going to happen

00:12:12.360 today. Now, this assumes that doctors will, you know, also say it would help. I wouldn't, I'm not

00:12:18.080 my own doctor. I would need a doctor to say, you need this. But do, do poor people act like that? 1.00

00:12:25.820 No, probably not. They're not going to be doctor shopping and, and going hard at their doctor.

00:12:33.060 It's sort of a privileged, rich person thing to do. I hate to say it, but we should be, I hope,

00:12:40.440 very close, maybe weeks away from having enough that you just have to want it. And your doctor just

00:12:47.420 has to know it works. And maybe you're okay. Maybe you'll get it. So if you, if you don't know that

00:12:53.540 number, what, uh, you know, how many people die if they get Regeneron and if they get, and when I say

00:13:00.680 Regeneron and Remdesivir, you should fill in, in your head without me having to say it. Also zinc,

00:13:08.300 also vitamin D, also, I don't know, aspirin, whatever the hell it is that they're giving.

00:13:13.380 I'm just thinking that those two drugs might be the key ones as far as we know. All right. So,

00:13:19.440 uh, if we don't know that death rate, do we know anything? Because I feel the old death rates should

00:13:27.960 be thrown away. Let me say this is a little bit clearly. When you look at the death rates of

00:13:33.500 coronavirus, it's always who died today, thrown into an average of all the people who died in the

00:13:39.700 past. The people who died in the past were pre-therapy. So all those numbers of how many

00:13:46.080 people died in the past should be thrown away now because we're, we're at least at the cusp

00:13:52.440 of having a therapy only or close to it therapy only situations. So we should, at this point,

00:14:01.340 we should make a national decision that we're going to throw away the historical data or at least

00:14:08.020 measure it two different ways. One is pre-therapies being widely available, however you define

00:14:14.860 therapies and post-therapies being available. It's, it has to be more than just it exists.

00:14:21.360 It has to be available to use in quantity. All right. So the longer we go with showing that

00:14:29.860 blended number of pre-therapies existing and post-therapies and acting like that's one big

00:14:36.060 number you can shove together and it means something, we are not doing the right job.

00:14:41.160 We're just not doing the right job. And if I were President Trump, that's the first thing I'd do.

00:14:46.820 I'd say, whoa, we have a choice about how we count this stuff. We don't have to count it in a misleading

00:14:52.880 way. Let's, let's continue with our old numbers, but show them separately. You could show, you could

00:14:59.880 show the blended number and then also in addition, show the separate numbers because without that separate

00:15:06.400 number, you don't know as much as you need to know. You can't manage your risk to the wrong number.

00:15:13.300 All right. I'm going to talk about the coronavirus a little bit more in a minute. We'll get back to

00:15:20.880 that. I love when politicians score an own goal. If you don't follow soccer and or, as my non-Americans

00:15:30.820 friends call it, football. If you don't follow the sport, you don't know what an own goal is,

00:15:36.800 but it means that you accidentally score a goal in your own goal instead of where you're supposed to

00:15:42.960 be scoring. And Democrats have done this maybe at least twice lately. And they're always funny.

00:15:51.800 The first one is, and I noticed this the other day, it got a ton of retweets. I think people were

00:15:57.960 laughing that Democrats have found a way to gaslight themselves, which is the funniest thing

00:16:04.480 in the world. So first of all, they invent this term gaslighting, which they use incorrectly.

00:16:10.700 Gaslighting, the real term for it is not just trying to fool somebody. They use it in a generic way.

00:16:19.580 I think I will allow, I'm about on the border of allowing, that common usage would allow that

00:16:26.520 gaslighting just means you're trying to fool somebody. It doesn't mean that. What it means

00:16:31.120 is you're trying to make them think they're crazy, so that they think they have an actual mental

00:16:35.660 problem. That's the original term, gaslighting. So that's not what's happening. People are trying

00:16:41.920 to fool people, but they're not trying to make them think they're actually crazy. However, so I'll

00:16:48.160 start using maybe gaslighting in the popular way, even though it's incorrect. And Democrats have

00:16:57.260 gaslighted themselves, which I've never seen before. They've gaslighted themselves. And the way they've

00:17:04.900 done that is they've frightened Trump supporters into silence. So they've been so bad to Trump

00:17:13.080 supporters that Trump supporters go into hiding, including, I think, when pollsters call. So the

00:17:20.740 Democrats have scared Trump supporters into hiding, which has the ironic, not ironic, I guess we'll just

00:17:30.180 use words to mean anything today. Ironic is another one of those words that passed into popular usage,

00:17:36.820 just meaning is a funny situation, when, you know, it didn't used to mean that. It used to mean

00:17:43.780 actually ironic. But forget that. I digress. My point is, the Democrats have scared Trump supporters

00:17:54.200 into hiding. But then here's the funny part. They've scared Trump supporters into hiding, but they still

00:18:01.220 believe the polls. You see where I'm going to this? I don't think that could be funnier. It would be one

00:18:08.440 thing to scare Trump supporters into hiding, and then not believe the polls, because you caused the

00:18:14.400 poll, your own actions caused the polls not to be reliable. Because you think, well, maybe they're just

00:18:21.140 not admitting they support Trump. So that's, the irony is that their own actions will cause them, if Trump

00:18:28.600 wins again, and I think he will, if Trump wins again, the level of surprise and shock that they're

00:18:35.600 about to experience might even surpass 2016. Because in 2016, it was a pretty big shock. But if after

00:18:45.840 four years of what they believe is obvious to everyone in the world, that Trump has, you know, botched

00:18:52.340 everything and destroyed everything, and he's, you know, he's Hitler and the plague, they've had four years 0.94

00:18:57.960 to live in this artificial world they've created for themselves. And so now, now, if he gets reelected,

00:19:06.680 nothing makes sense in their world. Their whole world doesn't make sense. If you could watch four

00:19:13.460 years of this orange monster and still reelect him, what's going on? It's not, in the Democrat world,

00:19:21.940 this wouldn't just be, oh, I wish my party had been elected. This would be a reality-destroying

00:19:29.140 event. Like, brains would actually melt. Not actually, but, you know, figuratively melt. You would see

00:19:37.740 people probably hospitalized. Not probably, almost definitely, I would say. Hospitalized with mental

00:19:46.720 illness. There is a gigantic mental illness risk ahead of us. I mean, really big. I don't know if

00:19:55.520 it will. My guess is that there will be protests and a little bit of violence, but we'll get past it.

00:20:02.480 So get ready for that. Here, so we're seeing more anecdotal reports of ballots being mailed to the

00:20:11.740 wrong people. So it was just another report of somebody who got three different ballots. One was

00:20:18.740 for somebody who used to live in the home. One was for the landlord who owned the home. And one was for

00:20:25.700 somebody else who was dead or something. So there are lots and lots of examples of people who are

00:20:30.680 getting a hold of other people's ballots. Now, that's a problem, right? If you have thousands and

00:20:37.620 thousands of people, it looks like it's, you know, if you were to judge by the anecdotal evidence,

00:20:43.880 which is not really evidence, it's just stuff you see. It could be tens of thousands. If you looked

00:20:51.600 nationally, could it be a hundred thousand ballots that didn't need to be sent out, got sent to the

00:20:59.100 wrong people. It's a pretty big number. But here's the thing I need you to fact check. It is my

00:21:07.380 understanding, and it's a fairly new understanding, so I didn't know this until recently, that there is

00:21:14.200 some kind of technology for matching signatures on a ballot to the driver's license records, which also

00:21:22.280 have your signature. Now, what are the odds that, let's say, their previous tenant's ballot comes to

00:21:28.660 you, and you think to yourself, I just doubled my vote. I got my own ballot, but I've got the previous

00:21:36.640 resident's ballot, too. I'm going to vote twice. I'm not even going to get caught. I'll make sure I don't

00:21:44.100 put my fingerprints on it. I'll, you know, they won't check that anyway, probably. And I'll just, I'll just

00:21:50.360 see what happens. I'll just, let's drop this in the mail. Let's just see what happens. What would

00:21:56.440 happen? I think the automatic signature comparison thing pops it out of the system. Now, once it gets

00:22:04.820 popped out of the system, and again, this is the part that I need you to fact check for me. Fact check

00:22:10.560 that if it gets rejected, and I believe it would, because the signatures would not match,

00:22:15.360 don't they contact the voter and say, there's probably a phone number on it, don't they contact

00:22:23.300 the voter and say, are you a real person? Can you prove you're really this person? Why doesn't your

00:22:27.460 signature match? Now, sometimes the signature doesn't match, because let's say somebody got

00:22:32.500 Parkinson, you know, so their signature is older, it doesn't match the other way. And usually the

00:22:38.800 person will just say, oh yeah, I just changed my signature, don't worry about it, and then it's

00:22:42.900 allowed. But I don't think that the people who are just going to fill out with somebody else's

00:22:49.540 ballot, I don't think they're going to count. But that's what I need the fact check on. I'm seeing

00:22:56.960 in the comments my understanding, which is that it's some states, but not all. But remember the

00:23:05.000 Adams rule of, Adams law of slow moving disasters. If it was true a month ago, that nobody had these,

00:23:14.780 that not all of the states had the technology to automatically check signatures, is it still true

00:23:21.980 one month later? Because normally you can't get anything done in one month, if you've ever worked

00:23:27.780 in any big organization. You know, one month is the time you're just getting ramped up to do anything.

00:23:34.420 But in an emergency, if you knew, oh my god, if we don't have this technology, checking signatures,

00:23:42.220 our whole state is going to be thrown out. Could you get it in a month if it was an emergency?

00:23:47.980 I think you could. I think you could get that technology in a month in an emergency. So does

00:23:55.760 that mean that all the states are safe? I doubt it. But I'll bet they're moving really as fast as

00:24:06.020 possible. All right. So I got my ballot in the mail. So I'm going to be filling that out pretty soon.

00:24:15.120 All right. Michigan apparently has a eight point lead in the official polls. So if you look at the

00:24:24.800 public polls, and I guess if you take an average, I think there, or at least some recent polls have

00:24:30.640 an eight point lead for Biden in Michigan, key state. But the internal GOP polling shows it dead even.

00:24:39.400 What does that tell you? What does that tell you? That the GOP polling, which only exists to be

00:24:50.360 accurate, right? If you're the Republican Party, or you're the Democratic Party, and you're paying for

00:24:57.180 your own internal polling, meaning the public won't see it, you need that to be accurate. Because

00:25:03.640 you're never going to hire anybody again, who gives you inaccurate internal polling. All right. A public

00:25:11.220 polling place can be wrong and just blow it off and say, well, we got that one wrong. But look at all

00:25:15.860 these other ones we got right. An internal polling company can't get something really wrong and expect

00:25:22.520 to ever do this work again. They got to get it right. The external polling, as has been well documented,

00:25:31.580 apparently they're not trying to get the right answer. Apparently, they are politically manipulating,

00:25:38.540 not in every case, not in every case. I'm not talking about every poll company. But it's pretty

00:25:44.140 obvious at this point, that they are rigging the polls, the public ones. So, but imagine this, an eight

00:25:54.200 point swing, an eight point swing, that is not even trying to hide it. You know, if you had a, let's

00:26:03.880 say a two point difference between your internal pollings and your external, you could say to

00:26:08.940 yourself, well, maybe the internal polling are just telling their client what they want to hear.

00:26:15.040 And then if they're wrong, they're only wrong by two percent, maybe that's still good enough to get

00:26:19.360 the job next year. But if you're wrong by, if you've got a difference of eight, somebody is not

00:26:27.280 trying to poll. One of those two entities is not even trying to get it right at that, at that level

00:26:35.220 of difference. All right. I guess Portland had another riot last night, except, you know,

00:26:45.220 there's nothing funny about a riot, except, except this one. I don't know that anybody got hurt,

00:26:53.760 so I can laugh about it. So there's apparently Antifa, Antifa has an indigenous wing. So these are

00:27:09.400 people who were indigenous to the United States, I guess, uh, Native Americans, et cetera. And

00:27:16.260 they are a separate wing of Antifa and they had their own day of rage. I guess this is, you know,

00:27:24.380 a protest in Columbus or something. And now the funny part is not that they have a, they have a

00:27:32.020 complaint because I'm all for anybody who has a complaint voicing their complaint, free country and

00:27:38.920 everything. And certainly the indigenous people have plenty to complain about. So, you know, if, 1.00

00:27:45.580 if indigenous people want to complain, I think we ought to listen to them, right? I mean, they have,

00:27:51.460 they have some genuine stuff to complain about there. And, you know, as well, many other people

00:27:56.340 have genuine complaints. Uh, but the fact that Antifa is now splintering into factions is just too

00:28:03.940 perfect. Cause you know, you can, you can see, you can see what's going to happen, right? You know

00:28:08.800 where this is going. Day one, Antifa is like a little group that's against the government, right?

00:28:16.940 Day two, now they've got their different segments. They've got your indigenous Antifa.

00:28:24.380 It won't be long before there's black Antifa. It won't, won't be long before there's maybe Asian 0.99

00:28:33.220 American Antifa. Is, don't, don't you think it's completely predictable that Antifa will break down

00:28:41.180 by, by gender and LB, uh, LGBTQ and, uh, and a whole bunch of other categories because the left is all

00:28:50.580 about categories. And if they can make a category, they're going to make one and then they're going

00:28:55.060 to form a little power unit around it. Cause there will always be somebody who says, you know,

00:29:00.900 if I could sell an LGBTQ form of Antifa and I'm in the LGBTQ, I might be like a leader.

00:29:12.360 I could become a leader if I make this little, if I carve out a little category that I would be the head

00:29:18.340 of. So it's sort of a, you know, um, uh, a natural progression. The Antifa will destroy itself,

00:29:26.380 which is hilarious. If you just let Antifa be Antifa, it will destroy itself. Now let, let me,

00:29:35.040 uh, make an analogy. A lot of people made ISIS analogies to Antifa, but there's one, one part of

00:29:41.380 that analogy, analogy that works really well. And it goes like this, uh, as soon as ISIS went from

00:29:49.320 being, you know, a terrorist group to holding territory, I said to myself, um, how's that going

00:29:56.240 to work? Because the whole thing that makes ISIS work is that you don't know where to find them. 0.84

00:30:02.560 But the moment they hold territory and form, you know, proper armies and proper governments,

00:30:08.060 they have targets. And these targets are completely vulnerable to the United States and allies and

00:30:14.820 Russians and anybody else who wants to bomb them. So I said to myself, this is a little like the dog 1.00

00:30:20.420 chasing a car. As long as the dog is chasing the car, the world is in balance. Everything's working.

00:30:27.940 But what if the dog catches the car? There's no model for that. Like the, it doesn't work. The dog can't

00:30:35.120 eat the car. It can't bite the car. It's the chasing that mattered. Likewise with ISIS, it was the 0.84

00:30:42.000 terrorism that mattered. As soon as they tried to hold territory, it can't work. It can't work to hold

00:30:48.280 territory. Al Qaeda can't do it. ISIS can't do it. They're just too bombable as soon as they hold

00:30:54.180 territory. Well, uh, Antifa is the same thing. The natural, the natural evolution of Antifa should be

00:31:03.980 that they're going to try to hold territory or they're going to try to have some kind of a more

00:31:08.580 formalized organization. The moment they're organized, they're a target. The moment they

00:31:15.180 hold territory, you can tear it apart like Chaz. You know, you can let it run a little bit, but then you 0.97

00:31:20.420 can tear it apart. So the more successful Antifa are, the closer they are to extinction. Does that make

00:31:28.920 sense? Because with ISIS, the closer they were to like holding territory, the closer they were to

00:31:36.040 extinction, because that was the point that they could be attacked and killed. So I think, uh, that's

00:31:42.720 the, that's where Antifa is going. They will become organized to the point where they're vulnerable

00:31:48.600 and then law enforcement will exploit the vulnerability and then take them down.

00:31:54.180 Um, um, so one of my favorite stories that could not be a more perfect story to explain Trump and the

00:32:05.980 era that we're in is that Trump is publicly claiming that he has immunity, immunity,

00:32:12.660 that he has immunity to the coronavirus because he's recovered from it. Now,

00:32:21.540 is there anything that's more perfectly Trump than that? If there was one thing you were going to

00:32:28.600 remember from this whole era, it would be that because, um, you know, I think, I think I'm going to

00:32:38.180 have to admit, obviously I'm a big Trump supporter, but not everything he does makes each one of us

00:32:44.760 happy in each moment. And I would say, uh, that president Trump's skillset is highly optimized

00:32:55.120 toward a number of things, defeating ISIS, getting, you know, getting tough with China. So his, his skillset

00:33:01.800 is sort of perfect for a whole bunch of tasks that are very important to the country. Let me tell you

00:33:08.100 what it's not good for. It's not good at all talking about medical stuff, because when you're talking

00:33:14.720 about medical stuff, you just can't use hyperbole. It's just the wrong place for, you know, over optimism

00:33:22.020 and hyperbole and it just doesn't fit. So, uh, there's somebody in the comments who might be out

00:33:29.880 of date. Uh, I had said that I wasn't going to vote for Trump after his bad handling of the

00:33:35.660 disavowing white supremacist comments, but he later disavowed them in clean, clear, unambiguous

00:33:44.000 language, as he has done many times in the past. I was never doubting what he was thinking. I was,

00:33:49.980 I was being angry at the way he handled it. Once he handled it correctly, I don't have a problem

00:33:56.040 with him. All right. Because he just needed, he needed to do that for the benefit of his supporters.

00:34:01.920 And then he did. I'm good. All right. As, as a general rule, if you fix your, if you fix your mistake,

00:34:11.380 I'm good with you. All right. I don't, I don't live in the past. Mistakes a mistake. We all make

00:34:16.940 mistakes. We all sub-optimize, but if you fix it, that's about as good as you can do as a human

00:34:23.820 being. You're not going to be flawless, but you can certainly fix your mistakes. All right. So

00:34:29.160 Trump claiming immunity, and I guess that caused Twitter to, uh, block his tweet about it and, uh,

00:34:35.940 say it was sketchy, but Facebook did not block it. So Facebook did not put a warning and did not block

00:34:42.020 it. And CNN is reporting that it was a false statement. That is a false statement that he is

00:34:50.360 immune and maybe he can't get it again. Now the president was left a little bit of equivocation

00:34:55.880 there because he said he doesn't know if he's permanently immune, but he thinks he is at the

00:35:02.620 moment. Now, is that fact untrue? No, it's not. It's not untrue. It is unproven. Whether or not it's

00:35:17.180 true, we don't know. We don't know. There is some disagreement among experts and therefore as

00:35:24.360 non-experts and Trump's a non-expert in this field as well. We don't know. Right? So when

00:35:32.180 CNN tries to sell you a story that says we know it's not true, what is that? It's a fake

00:35:40.380 medical claim. It is, it is a false medical claim by, by anybody to say that you don't

00:35:49.980 get immunity because we also don't know that. What is true? And, and here's what, here's

00:35:57.500 what I believe to be true without the benefit of expertise. So you should not listen to me.

00:36:04.400 This is simply my internal belief. You can check it against your own. My internal belief

00:36:10.220 is that Trump is probably right because our history with coronavirus is such that having

00:36:18.660 it once confers immunity. Rand Paul says the same thing quite vigorously. He had it also,

00:36:26.080 and he claims that he is, has immunity, and he is medically trained. So he's a medically trained

00:36:33.460 person who's saying, well, it's not proven that you have immunity, but everything we know about

00:36:41.440 coronavirus strongly suggests strongly, really strongly suggests that you do. Now, I think

00:36:49.280 there's some issue of their, their anecdotal stories of some people who seem to be, have been infected

00:36:56.140 twice. If that's true, that certainly throws it open to question. But would that be the sort of thing

00:37:05.100 that could happen commonly? Or were those people never really, um, cured? And so really they always

00:37:12.920 had it, they never got rid of it, and it flared back up? Was it maybe the way they do the testing that

00:37:19.440 suggests they were still infected, but maybe they weren't the second time? No, no. So there's certainly, uh,

00:37:26.960 some, some uncertainty on this question, but I think that they need, uh, Twitter maybe needs to do a better

00:37:33.480 job of labeling it. There's a big difference between something that's probably true, but unproven,

00:37:40.360 and I think that's where the president's, uh, situation falls into, meaning that based on everything

00:37:46.920 we know about coronaviruses and immunity, he's probably right, but it's unproven. There's a big

00:37:55.760 difference between something that's probably right, but unproven, and something that's just false.

00:38:02.640 And yeah, I don't think you should treat them the same, but I would, I would admit that if the

00:38:08.620 president is wrong about this, it could, could be a big problem. I do think we should know that it's

00:38:15.520 uncertain. I do think you should know that, that nothing's a hundred percent. Um, all right, so here's

00:38:25.000 a question for you. Let's say, uh, you and I both eat a peanut and I eat a peanut and I just enjoy

00:38:34.640 eating my peanut. You eat the peanut and you die because you have a peanut allergy. Did the peanut

00:38:42.740 kill you or was it the peanut allergy that killed you? Because I ate the peanut. So the peanut is not

00:38:52.560 deadly because I ate it and it didn't hurt me a bit, but it killed you. So was it the peanut that killed

00:39:00.640 you or your underlying peanut allergy that killed you? Because this sort of thing matters if you're

00:39:08.660 looking at the coronavirus and what's the cause of death. If, if you and I are both 75, but you've got

00:39:19.280 terminal cancer and I don't, we both get the coronavirus. I live and you don't. Was it the

00:39:26.820 coronavirus that killed you? Because remember, I got it too. If the coronavirus didn't kill me,

00:39:33.780 the only thing that's different is you had a comorbidity and I didn't. I'd say it was the

00:39:38.820 comorbidity that killed you. Right? Because if two people could be shot with the same bullet and one

00:39:47.320 person, it just bounces off and the other person that kills them, is it the bullet that killed them?

00:39:53.860 Because apparently bullets are not deadly unless you've got some kind of underlying, you know,

00:39:59.520 immunity to bullets. And this is the worst analogy anybody ever made. You should just erase that one

00:40:05.960 for your mind immediately. Pretend I didn't even say it. The bullet one is bad. The peanut one is pretty

00:40:11.240 good. So I think the way we count this stuff really has to be examined. I'm not the first person to say

00:40:19.080 that. All right. And, but I'm wondering if the Regeneron and Remdesivir turn out to be really game

00:40:27.120 changers, wouldn't we say that the real risk of death is no longer the coronavirus, but the, but the

00:40:35.520 lack of proper care. Think about that. If we're at a point, and we might be, where the only way you're

00:40:43.840 going to die from the coronavirus is if you don't get proper care soon enough, or you've got something

00:40:50.360 going on with you that's so, so bad health-wise that it's going to take you out, even if you get

00:40:57.740 proper care. So in both of those cases, it feels like the cause of death, you could make an argument

00:41:04.140 would be lack of proper care. If everybody who gets the proper care survives, except for the sliver of

00:41:11.800 people who are so sick with something else that they were going to, you know, something would have

00:41:16.060 taken them out pretty soon. All right. So it's real, it's real murky area when you get your social

00:41:26.640 platforms fact-checking. All right. All right. Let's see. I'm just looking at my own notes here.

00:41:38.100 Liz Peek wrote a piece on foxnews.com, and she talks about another own goal, this one from Pelosi.

00:41:50.240 And this own goal goes like this. So Pelosi came up with this idea of doing some legislation to

00:42:00.480 formalize the process of removing the president for incapacity, incapacitation, I guess. So we have

00:42:10.340 the, you know, the 25th Amendment. So the Constitution allows that a president can be removed if they're

00:42:16.360 not functioning mentally or physically. And she wanted to formalize that, you know, so that there's

00:42:25.020 a real procedure there. Now, that, of course, sounds like something being used against Trump. And if you

00:42:34.800 were watching my periscopes and live streams, you know that when Trump was on the steroids, even I was

00:42:41.900 saying, I would watch out for that. Because he's talking like a person on steroids. He's saying

00:42:49.520 things that are even a little bit more Trumpian than Trump. Just a little. That doesn't mean I'm

00:42:56.060 right. It just means that the drug has that side effect. It's a known common side effect. It'll make

00:43:02.620 you feel a little peppier and a little more confident than maybe you should. And a little more aggressive

00:43:09.960 than you should. So I thought that was a legitimate question two weeks ago or a week ago. Time is

00:43:18.100 completely screwed up now. So I thought that was the right question a week ago. If it's true that

00:43:24.100 Trump is off of that drug, and that would be the one I'd be worried about, then I would say that's no

00:43:29.800 longer an issue. And I think Nancy Pelosi was trying to sell us on the fact that it was a general 1.00

00:43:37.680 need. It wasn't directed at President Trump. It was, you know, it was maybe she thought of it

00:43:43.240 because of that. But it's really about the future. And then President Trump, cleverly, he hinted that

00:43:51.220 the, I don't know where he was when he did this, but according to Liz Peek, he hinted that the bill's

00:43:56.540 real purpose was to make it simpler for Democrats to remove Joe Biden later.

00:44:01.760 Where have you heard that before?

00:44:08.100 That's right. I'm not the only person who said it, but other people on social media were saying,

00:44:13.480 I think Joel Pollack tweeted and wrote on this as well, for Breitbart, that

00:44:19.560 you better watch out for this, Nancy Pelosi, because we're sort of on to you. It looks like

00:44:27.320 maybe the real reason is to get rid of Biden later to make it easier. And once you have that frame,

00:44:35.780 and people accept that as, oh, yeah, that would make it easier to get rid of Biden if necessary.

00:44:41.840 And you add that to the fact that, as Liz Peek says, the Erasmussen poll from August showed 59% of

00:44:49.080 likely voters believe that Biden won't finish a four-year term. So pushing two-thirds of voters

00:44:58.480 think that he won't make it four years. Now, if you think that, and you see Pelosi getting ready with

00:45:07.000 this 25th Amendment thing, then it becomes just strikingly clear, strikingly clear, that Kamala Harris

00:45:18.800 is the one you need to be looking at as the candidate. And she does not have the popularity 1.00

00:45:24.460 of Joe Biden. So it's a fairly devastating change of frame if you can actually get Democrats to

00:45:31.320 change their focus from, well, it's Biden, we'll do what we can, you know, he'll have lots of good

00:45:37.380 advisors, you know, whatever. If you can change the frame to, it's really Kamala Harris. And by the way,

00:45:45.280 I'm trying to say her name correctly, because I'm just learning how to pronounce it correctly.

00:45:51.240 I learned that from Trey Gowdy on TV the other night. He admitted he'd been saying her name wrong

00:45:56.960 for forever, and just learned how to say it correctly. So I'll try to follow his model there.

00:46:03.380 So it's Kamala, not Kamala. I believe that is correct. And you should try to get that right,

00:46:12.600 too. The one thing we should do is try to get people's names right. I feel like that's sort of,

00:46:18.660 you know, basic respect, even if they're your opponents. All right, so that's an interesting thing.

00:46:27.440 And I have to ask you this. Would President Trump have gone with that play of saying,

00:46:35.320 well, maybe that's really about Biden? Would he have come up with that if not for social media?

00:46:41.780 Interesting question, isn't it? Because I've been saying for a few years now that the thing that

00:46:48.460 makes Trump special, one of the things, there's a whole lot of things that make him special,

00:46:53.560 but one of the things is that he's more tapped into social media than other candidates. In other

00:46:59.560 words, he understands the medium better than other people. He follows it. He absorbs it. He,

00:47:05.180 you know, he takes value from it in a way that I've never seen before. And part of the value he

00:47:10.540 extracts from social media is that it's being, it's a continuous A-B testing for his ideas. So if you

00:47:18.520 were to follow, you know, the top, I don't know, top 50 influential Trump-leading accounts,

00:47:29.980 and I'm sure that the White House does exactly that. I feel fairly confident in saying that the

00:47:36.420 White House and lots of people in the White House do follow the top 50 or so conservative voices or

00:47:44.360 pro-Trump people. And if those people put out an idea that's good, the president's going to know

00:47:50.380 about it, either directly because he saw it or somebody smart on his staff said, oh, this one's,

00:47:55.820 this one got a lot of tweets. You know, look at the retweets on this one. This one's, this one's

00:48:00.680 going to sell. And then it comes out of the president's mouth. So when you see that model

00:48:06.120 being worked successfully, that is part of Trump's brilliance. Let's talk about court packing.

00:48:14.360 As has been noted by many pundits, the Democrats are trying this play where they're just changing

00:48:21.060 the definition of court packing, and they're turning it into filling a position when it's almost

00:48:27.100 election time. That's court packing now, as opposed to increasing the number of seats. Now, of course,

00:48:37.100 Republicans are saying, foul, foul. You can't use those same words for a whole different thing.

00:48:43.220 Court packing, those are our words. We're using it for increasing the number, not filling an open

00:48:49.880 seat. That's different. Does it matter? I'm not sure that any of that conversation matters to anybody,

00:48:56.880 but it confuses things. And maybe that's good for the Democrats, just keep things confusing.

00:49:02.860 Now, here's the thing. The fact that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris both tell you they won't give you an

00:49:09.780 answer on court packing. That's disqualifying. That's it. In my opinion, given that court packing

00:49:18.340 has such a high likelihood of destroying the republic, and I'd say maybe a third, 30% or so,

00:49:26.440 if I had to guess, I'd say court packing has a 30% chance of destroying the United States.

00:49:33.000 That's why the founders were not in favor of it necessarily. Was it the founders? Or at least

00:49:39.260 people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, people like Joe Biden, when he talked about it in the past.

00:49:46.040 Pretty much all of the smart, wise, normal people from the past have said, whoa, whoa, whoa, if you

00:49:53.180 cross that norm, if you violate that norm, it's not written in the Constitution, and it has to be nine.

00:49:58.840 But if you start messing with that, you've turned the court into a purely political organ that has

00:50:05.320 no value for deciding things. It would just be whatever the group in power wanted. So if you had

00:50:16.040 a president and a Senate that were Republican, you'd have 59 Republican Supreme Court people, 0.96

00:50:24.940 and then the Democrats win the next year, now there's 110 Supreme Court people, basically,

00:50:30.760 the Supreme Court would lose all credibility. Now, you could argue that it already did. And that the

00:50:37.820 difference between, you know, having court packing, and what we see today, which is, if you get a few

00:50:44.920 extra conservatives on there, things go your way. I don't know if it's that different, in terms of the

00:50:51.680 outcome. I just don't. But I'll tell you what does matter. Having it close to 50-50. Our best

00:51:00.700 situation is that the court would be locked 50-50. If I were president, and here's a reason why I would

00:51:09.320 never be president, because of the following policy. If I were president, I would lock up the court,

00:51:15.540 and I would make sure that I appointed whatever is the one that was in the minority, until they were

00:51:20.800 exactly even. And here's why. If a court that is 50-50 makes a decision, you're going to say to

00:51:31.280 yourself, okay, that's probably pretty valid. And that's probably just following the Constitution,

00:51:37.560 because they're 50-50. And if they can get a decision out of this that isn't a tie,

00:51:42.100 somebody got convinced. I would call that credible. If you have, let's say, a one-person

00:51:49.320 majority, and that one person might be, you know, Justice Roberts, sometimes he votes a way you don't

00:51:56.620 expect, still credibility. Because obviously there are situations, and there are numerous of them,

00:52:04.700 in which things didn't go quite the way you thought, and that one-person majority didn't give

00:52:09.660 you what you hoped it would. So being exactly even, or being off by one, completely credible court.

00:52:17.960 What happens when you've got a solid two-person or three-person majority on the court?

00:52:25.880 Revolution. Revolution. Because one way to ruin the court is to have a solid majority for either the

00:52:34.720 left or the right, which is where we're heading. So the ACB, let's assume Amy Coney Barrett gets on the 1.00

00:52:44.240 court. You'll have like a two-plus, depending on what you think about Roberts, you know, a two-plus

00:52:50.600 solid majority of conservatives. Is that a credible situation? Nope. Nope. It's completely,

00:52:59.640 completely acceptable constitutionally. It's completely acceptable if you're a conservative.

00:53:07.360 But is it credible to the people who have to live under it who would prefer it went a different way?

00:53:14.160 The answer is no. It isn't. And so I would argue that the Amy Coney Barrett nomination will

00:53:21.980 destabilize the country. Now, maybe not enough for a revolution, but it's a destabilizing effect.

00:53:29.720 The best stability would be a lot closer to an even number. Now, could President Trump get away with,

00:53:39.040 you know, in a hypothetical? Could he nominate, you know, a left-leaning judge and say, look,

00:53:46.680 we want to keep this credible. We want to keep it at least closer to even. We're all going to be better

00:53:52.720 off if they only make decisions when it's obvious that the Constitution supports it. So I'm just going

00:53:59.200 to try to keep it even. No, he would be voted out in a heartbeat. He wouldn't have a chance. So the

00:54:05.500 president doesn't have that option. He kind of has to do what he's doing, go aggressive, try to keep the

00:54:11.220 majority as long as you can, protect the country. But it's very destabilizing. And I think it's

00:54:16.420 the worst, it's the second worst situation. The worst situation would be court packing.

00:54:23.540 The second to worst is what's happening right now. And by the way, I'm not saying that I'm

00:54:29.260 disagreeing with having conservative judges. I think the idea of being originalists and trying

00:54:35.420 to stick to the, you know, stick to the Constitution just makes sense. It just makes good, good sense

00:54:42.480 things. They're having clean rules, even if they don't work perfectly. If we all agree with them,

00:54:48.160 and they're credible, and they're clean, and they've worked for a while, that's just a better

00:54:52.100 situation. All right. So that's what we're, and today all the yakking will be about Amy Coney Barrett's

00:55:02.000 religion and Catholicism. Is it just me, or are the rest of you completely over that conversation?

00:55:08.600 Here's what I don't care about even a little bit. Her religion. In what world did I wake 1.00

00:55:16.460 up in in which Catholicism is radical? When did Catholics become radical? What world did

00:55:25.640 I wake up in that were even asking this stupid question? Yeah, yeah, those Catholics. Got 1.00

00:55:32.300 to watch out for those Catholics. What? It's the question that shouldn't even be, we should just 1.00

00:55:39.380 be bored by it. You know, the big question is, are you conservative or are you liberal? Those are

00:55:45.760 gigantic questions, because those absolutely will guarantee which way you vote on most things.

00:55:52.740 But your religion? You know, as long as you're in one of the mainstream religions,

00:55:58.300 I feel like you're probably okay. Now, we haven't yet tested an Islamic justice, but that's coming. 0.99

00:56:07.840 Better get ready for that. That's coming. And that does open up a whole new set of questions,

00:56:13.940 because of Sharia, you know, is the Islamic community as willing as other communities to,

00:56:24.240 you know, to say the law is the law and our religion can stand aside. We'll see. Someday we'll,

00:56:32.880 we'll have to wrestle with that. Oh, I forgot to mention, I think this was also from,

00:56:42.180 who did this come from? Cheryl Atkinson, I think, said this on Twitter, that the, the Democrats are

00:56:48.720 saying they don't want to do the nomination, Supreme Court nomination until after the election.

00:56:54.240 Does that sound fair? Does that sound fair? To do the, the Supreme Court nomination after the

00:56:59.720 election? Because that way, you guarantee that the person who's doing the nominating is who the,

00:57:05.080 the country wanted. And, uh, I think it was Cheryl Atkinson who pointed out, um, this is after the

00:57:13.460 election. Right now, today, this is after the election. It's after the 2016 election. We did wait until

00:57:23.520 after the election. That's now. And maybe it doesn't seem like, you know, it's after the election

00:57:31.900 because the whole, the whole Russia collusion thing made us think that the election wasn't over

00:57:36.760 for three years. It felt like maybe the election's not exactly over. Maybe the Russians did something.

00:57:44.360 Maybe, maybe it's illegitimate. Maybe it didn't count. But, you know, now that the Mueller report

00:57:51.480 is out and the IG report is out, um, I think we can say that that election's over and Trump won.

00:57:59.040 And therefore, that's it. He gets to nominate. And I think that's what's going to happen.

00:58:04.060 Here's, uh, what I think Trump ought to think about in terms of branding. I think he's doing,

00:58:09.740 at the moment, a really strong job, uh, strong. He's doing a good job in making a play for black

00:58:17.620 votes. And I think that's what a lot of us wanted to see. Maybe some, maybe some didn't want to see

00:58:23.480 that. But I wanted to see it. And from the beginning, I've been saying, you know, I might be

00:58:28.520 crazy, but I feel like even despite all the things said about Trump, I feel as if he might get more

00:58:36.200 black votes than any Republican ever. Now, I've been saying that for several years. And I know

00:58:42.060 that was maybe the least credible thing I've ever said in the beginning. When I first started saying

00:58:48.340 this around, you know, 2017 or so, I'm pretty sure nobody thought that was going to be a thing.

00:58:55.420 And now it's common knowledge that he looks like he's going to have maybe a historically high

00:59:01.040 black vote. Still too small, but historically high, which is what I was expecting. Here is the framing 1.00

00:59:09.180 change that would be fascinating to see. I don't think it's going to happen. I'm not sure I would

00:59:15.660 recommend it, but it's what I would do. Um, and so right now the conversation is, uh, you know,

00:59:22.560 black lives matter. And I feel like Trump could turn that into black jobs matter. Now, I don't 1.00

00:59:30.820 think he'd want to use that phrase because that that's just too provocative. If you borrow their

00:59:35.760 phrase, it sounds like you're minimizing the original point of black lives matter. He doesn't 0.99

00:59:41.300 need to minimize that, of course, because nobody should be minimizing that. But here's how I would

00:59:47.980 have framed it. Um, if I'm president, I would say this, I'll fix your opportunities, not your

00:59:56.220 feelings. That's it. That's the frame. I'll fix your opportunities, but I won't fix your feelings.

01:00:04.140 You're going to have to work on that yourself. And specifically what I'll do is I'll try to give

01:00:09.220 you school choice so that you have an opportunity to get a good education. And I'll try to make sure

01:00:14.840 that you've got opportunity zones, that you've got the, uh, what is he called? The platinum plan or

01:00:19.860 something like that, whatever it is that, uh, would provide capital to underserved parts of doing a

01:00:26.340 prison reform and then list a few other things and say, that's my deal. I realize that, you know,

01:00:34.560 emotions are high and the way you feel is the way you feel. I'm not going to try to make you feel

01:00:39.680 differently. That's not my job. I'm not the president of your feelings. I will fight to the

01:00:46.700 death to make sure that your opportunity is every bit as good as everybody else's because that's

01:00:53.360 America, right? But your feelings and what matters and your feelings, those are personal.

01:01:01.340 Figure it out yourself, but I'll be working on your opportunities. If you want the, if you want the

01:01:07.060 party that will be good for your feelings, but I don't think it's going to, you can see from

01:01:12.200 experience, you can see they're not fighting for your opportunities. You don't see anything, do you?

01:01:17.480 What is Biden's plan for the black community? Nothing. He wants, he wants to make you feel good.

01:01:25.080 Not the president's job. President could say, I really want you to feel good,

01:01:29.680 but it's not my job. It just isn't my job. Opportunity? I'm going to, I'm going to die on

01:01:36.840 that hill. I'll, I'll, I'll fight for school choice. I'll fight for, you know, fair jobs. I'll

01:01:42.540 fight for fairness in every possible way, but your feelings, that has to be you. That's just you

01:01:49.960 and, and good luck with it. Here's another reframing that I think would be useful. We keep running

01:01:57.720 into people who say the president killed 200 and whatever the number is, 210,000 dead by his

01:02:04.620 coronavirus handling. Instead of arguing that in the traditional way, I would go with this first.

01:02:14.260 I would say, uh, the only people who say that are people who are not skilled at comparing things.

01:02:20.480 Think about that response. Imagine you're doing a TV interview. Oh, by the way, uh, I'm going on

01:02:29.960 MSNBC. So I think that's tomorrow. Let me check my calendar. Yes. I'll be on Arie Melber show on

01:02:39.800 MSNBC tomorrow. Um, I've got it at my, my local time, three o'clock in California. So that would be,

01:02:48.320 um, 6 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow, Tuesday. So if you want to see me on MSNBC, you know, you do,

01:02:56.380 you know, you want to see me on MSNBC. Now I stopped doing interviews. I just, I get a lot of

01:03:04.440 interview requests for podcasts and stuff. And I'd been saying no to all of them. And I was going to

01:03:09.700 say no through the end of the election, just because I'm doing other stuff. But when I got the MSNBC,

01:03:16.100 uh, invitation, I thought to myself, I don't think they know exactly what they're getting here,

01:03:22.740 but if they want to give it a try, all right. So back to my original point, if, if somebody

01:03:31.160 challenges you, let's say you're on TV supporting the president and they cite the 210,000 dead,

01:03:38.160 rather than going through the argument of why you can't really count all of those as

01:03:44.240 the president's death count, I would, I would say, you know, the only people who are saying that

01:03:50.060 are the ones who are, who don't have a talent for comparing things. You know, if you've got some

01:03:56.620 extra time, I could walk you through how to do that. But the starting point is that you should look at

01:04:02.080 how some other leader would have done in the American situation with states having lots of power

01:04:08.560 with a big country with, you know, we've got a bigger black population. They're more vulnerable.

01:04:14.740 We have more obesity, unfortunately, and they're more vulnerable. So the real question, if you were

01:04:20.060 good at comparing things is how would, let's say the leader of New Zealand, how would she have done 0.98

01:04:27.280 if she had been in Trump's job? And that's unknowable. Right? And, and then, uh, that's a way smarter

01:04:37.260 answer. And by the way, that's the, uh, that's the big, the, uh, the big picture technique. Um, I would

01:04:44.300 also, if you had extra time, you could bring up Switzerland. I mentioned this yesterday. Switzerland

01:04:49.680 also has, you know, they've got their German speaking, their French speaking, and I guess their

01:04:56.380 Flemish speaking areas. And the, the outcome for those different cultures has been wildly

01:05:02.520 different. Once you know that one little country that is well-managed, I believe everybody would

01:05:09.240 say Switzerland is a well-managed country. That's, that's sort of the reputation they have. I don't

01:05:14.680 know if it's true, but it's the reputation they have. Um, and you can see that the same leadership

01:05:20.840 from the top level got wildly different results in different cultural areas, which suggests that

01:05:29.540 leadership is not the primary variable, that there's something we still don't quite understand

01:05:34.420 about what it is that people are doing to cause this. Now it could be, as, uh, as I mentioned

01:05:41.280 yesterday, it could be commuting and travel differences. It doesn't have to be cultural per se.

01:05:47.180 Okay. Could be just some correlation with certain groups travel or commute in different ways. Could

01:05:52.840 be that. So anyway, uh, I w I was curious about the claim that there are more right-wing extremists

01:06:02.340 killing people in this country than there are left-wing extremists. And I was looking at a report today

01:06:10.440 from the center on extremism. So they, they study the stuff and I wanted to see the stats. How many

01:06:17.380 people in the comments, before I give you the answer, I want you to commit to this without looking

01:06:23.160 anything up. You, you've been told by the government, and I believe this is, uh, this is backed up by the

01:06:30.440 data that right-wing extremism is a bigger problem than left-wing extremism. Now, how many total people

01:06:38.900 do you think were killed in 20, let's say 2019? Uh, cause that's, was the, you know, a normal year.

01:06:46.080 How many people were killed by right-wing extremists in that year and also prior years? Cause it's not

01:06:53.120 that different. What, what, just off the top of your head, off the top of your head, um, Scott,

01:07:01.900 quit saying Flemish, please. Uh, somebody's, uh, correcting me and saying it's an Italian area,

01:07:09.180 not a Flemish. I, I only know I was reading that there are Flemish speakers in Switzerland. Is that

01:07:16.040 not true? There may also be an Italian section, but is somebody telling me there are not, there are not

01:07:22.800 Flemish speakers. Oh, somebody says they're not Flemish, but Italian. All right. Well, we'll look

01:07:29.840 that up. That's a different question. So how many people do you think were killed by right-wing

01:07:33.540 extremists in 2019? The answer is a little over 40. And half of those were in one event, the El Paso

01:07:42.780 Walmart in which 20 people died. Now here's the question. How worried should you be about a problem

01:07:50.720 that kills 40 people a year on average? A big year is like a McVeigh blows up the FBI building and it's,

01:07:59.320 you know, over a hundred people, but typically it's just cooking along at around 41, 42 per year.

01:08:07.940 Now, let me, let me say something that I criticize other people about. You should worry about a small

01:08:16.960 problem that's becoming a big problem. You don't get to say, well, only 40 people died this year. I

01:08:23.360 guess we can ignore it. Not if next year it's going to be 50. And the year after that, it's going to be

01:08:29.240 150. If it looks like it has that potential, then it's not the number this year. It's the fact that it

01:08:36.500 has that potential to grow that makes it important. So how, how, how concerned should you be about a

01:08:45.300 problem in the United States that kills 40 people a year? I'm saving the best part of this story.

01:08:53.140 How many people were killed by Islamic extremism in the United States in 2019? All right, so 40

01:09:02.320 something people killed by right-wing extremists. How many Islamic extremists, how many deaths did they

01:09:10.140 cause in 2019? You ready for this? Zero. None. Think about that. Under President Trump, you stopped

01:09:23.220 worrying about Islamic extremist attacks in the United States. And in 2019, there were zero.

01:09:33.180 None. Now, I don't want to jinx it because there could be one right around the corner. You never know.

01:09:38.040 But I don't think that story's been told. And the story is, whatever the hell our government is

01:09:45.840 doing, and especially the spooky parts of the government that do the dirty work that you don't

01:09:51.220 want to know about, whatever they're doing, it's freaking working. All right? And I don't think,

01:09:58.540 I don't even know who to give credit for that. Is that the CIA? Is it the FBI? Is it because our

01:10:05.620 military-pounded ISIS so well and got a hold of all their secrets? What exactly is that? Is it the

01:10:13.320 president? I don't know. But whoever did this, this thing that took the scariest thing in many of our

01:10:22.500 lives after 9-11, whoever turned that big scary thing into 2019? Nothing. Whoever did that needs a

01:10:34.000 Nobel Peace Prize. Because that's big. And it just sort of, because it happened gradually, and we just

01:10:40.820 sort of slid into it, and maybe because it was a President Trump, it just sort of got ignored.

01:10:47.540 One of our biggest problems, maybe zero now. Now, you compare those numbers of 40-some dead by

01:10:57.520 right-wing extremists. Do I think we should work on that and try to control that? Yes. Yes. So I worry

01:11:06.720 that somebody's going to watch this and say, and there he is, downplaying right-wing extremism.

01:11:12.580 I'm not downplaying it. It seems like something you'd really, really want to keep to zero, just like

01:11:19.720 Islamic extremism. And anything above zero right-wing extremism is way too much right-wing

01:11:27.500 extremism. So we should be putting maximum pressure on it. But let's not keep it out of perspective.

01:11:35.080 You know, we're losing perspective on it in terms of its current size. But of course,

01:11:39.340 you want to keep it from getting bigger. Somebody says, there is no right-wing extremism.

01:11:46.420 Well, it depends what you would call, let's say, the El Paso shooter, the Walmart shooter. His problem

01:11:52.600 were Mexicans coming from Mexico and immigration. He's being called a white supremacist. I'm no

01:12:01.780 expert, but that seems right-wing-ish, the way it's defined. All right. That's about all I got for

01:12:09.960 you today. And I will talk to you after today, also called tomorrow. All right. Periscope is turned

01:12:20.820 off. And it's just us here on YouTube. So yesterday, YouTube demonetized my live stream. So if you were

01:12:33.620 here yesterday and you saw me yesterday, what was it that I said yesterday that would cause me to be

01:12:40.480 demonetized? Do you have any idea? Because I don't. So I complained about it on Twitter and YouTube's,

01:12:49.200 one of YouTube's Twitter, one of YouTube's teams that has a Twitter account noticed it. Somebody

01:12:56.320 probably sent it to him. And they contacted me and they said, can you send us the URL of what got

01:13:02.580 demonetized? Because I guess the demonetizing happens by AI. So artificial intelligence demonetized

01:13:10.800 me yesterday. The humans don't know why. Who's in charge of the country? Think about it. The humans

01:13:20.260 don't know why I was demonetized and told me. They don't know why. And they say, we'll do a human

01:13:25.860 review, which is their check against the AI being too wild. But let me ask you this.

01:13:32.260 If I were not the Dilber guy, would YouTube be checking on that for me? Do you think I would 1.00

01:13:39.340 get a full human review if I were not famous and in the public eye? Probably not. Probably not,

01:13:48.300 because they wouldn't have noticed my tweet. They just wouldn't even be aware of it. So if I were not

01:13:54.780 famous, artificial intelligence would have decided whether you could see my content as much. I think

01:14:03.980 YouTube denies this, but I don't believe it for a second. And that's the question of whether a

01:14:10.020 monetized content is distributed and promoted within YouTube as much. It sounds crazy to me

01:14:18.960 that they would promote something that doesn't have advertising in it as much as they would promote

01:14:24.040 something that makes money for YouTube. So I tend to believe that the AI promotes things that are

01:14:31.140 monetized. So that's a little YouTube inside story. The good news is that the YouTube team

01:14:39.500 was right on it. And they're looking at it. I'll tell you later if they re-monetized it. But here's

01:14:48.340 the scary part. I don't have any clue what kind of content I said yesterday that would have even

01:14:56.160 tripped an automatic AI review. I don't know anything I said that was controversial. Because I make an

01:15:05.960 attempt to understand where that line is and make sure I'm always below it. I am not trying to exceed

01:15:12.500 that line and get away with something or push the boundaries or anything. I'm not trying to do

01:15:17.140 anything. I'm trying to play within the rules. I tend to be the kind of person who says, if it's a

01:15:24.360 free country and somebody says, these are our rules, if you want to be in the system, we're all going to

01:15:30.860 play by the same rules. I'm good with that, even if the rules don't work for me. Because

01:15:35.560 everybody's playing by the same rules. I just don't know what the rules are. It's a little

01:15:40.860 ambiguous at the moment. So that's enough for that. And I will talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 12, 2020

Episode 1152 Scott Adams： ACB, Found Ballots, Trump's Immunity, Court Packing, Extremism, Pelosi Blunders

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript