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?

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

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,

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript