Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1154 Scott Adams： Mask Science Explained, Preference Versus Orientation, Wolf Blitzes Pelosi, Hunter is Hunted

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. It's time. You found the right place. This is where you have

00:00:17.000 coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of the day, every single time. And it's going

00:00:23.060 to happen again. Yeah, the consistency of it is just crazy. And all you need is a cup

00:00:29.700 or a mug or a glass of tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen drink or a flask, a vessel

00:00:33.320 of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled

00:00:41.420 pleasure of the dopamine to end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including

00:00:47.660 the pandemic. It's called the simultaneous. Something happens now. Go.

00:00:55.660 I feel my vitamin D levels zooming. My white blood count. It's going crazy. I hope you are

00:01:08.080 just as healthy as I am today. I feel like President Trump. Yeah, that healthy. That's

00:01:15.820 crazy. I know. All right. So I've got a little quiz I want you to think about, and then we'll

00:01:21.500 get to it later. All right. Here's the quiz. Let's say 85% of the people who got to COVID wore

00:01:33.360 masks. What is the conclusion? Because you're all rational people. You all know how to analyze

00:01:41.300 things. This should be an easy one. And I'm going to get to this a little bit, but I want to let it

00:01:47.240 just marinate with you a little bit. Okay. So 85% of the people who got COVID wore masks.

00:01:55.380 What do you conclude about that? We'll get to that in a minute. But first, last night I was going to be

00:02:01.780 on MSNBC as a guest with Ari Milber, but I got bumped because the ACB Supreme Court hearings went

00:02:13.540 long. They offered to tape it, but I decided to decline the offer to tape it, and we'll just do

00:02:22.200 it live some other time. So I'll let you know when that happens. I saw that the phrase Black Trump

00:02:30.360 was trending, and I thought to myself, oh, it's a story about LeBron James. So I went to see what

00:02:38.120 LeBron James was doing, because as you know, who was it who came up with that name? Somebody's

00:02:45.440 calling LeBron James Black Trump, because he was born with a lot of advantages.

00:02:52.080 And it turns out that the story is that a lot of black Trump supporters on Twitter were not real

00:03:01.760 black supporters. They were actually fake accounts. And a number of them, I guess there were thousands

00:03:08.800 of them, and they vanished. Now, the funny thing is, if you're a Trump supporter, you probably noticed

00:03:16.220 a whole bunch of black Trump supporters that just sort of appeared in the last few months.

00:03:25.780 I remember seeing them all and thinking to myself, maybe it could be real, but I guess we know the answer

00:03:35.840 now. Likewise, there are a number of female Trump supporters on Twitter who just sort of

00:03:46.200 appear around election time. And I'm waiting for them to disappear too. So I don't know who's behind

00:03:54.980 that, but it's fairly transparent. Did you see that Trump tweeted a meme in which it showed Joe Biden

00:04:04.740 at an old folks home? And instead of Biden for president, the P is crossed out. So it's Biden for

00:04:13.620 a resident, a resident of an old folks home. And it shows him in his little wheelchair in the middle

00:04:19.500 of the old folks home. Now, it's really funny. And of course, part of what makes it funny is that he

00:04:27.040 did it at all. You know, if I send that to you, you know, you say, ah, cartoonist, send it to me.

00:04:34.040 It's kind of amusing. But when the president of the United States tweets that, it just becomes a whole

00:04:40.740 different level of funny because he's not supposed to. And he knows he's not supposed to, and that he

00:04:47.180 does it anyway, which is what, that's the joke. The joke is not the meme. The joke is that he tweeted

00:04:53.780 it, and he's not supposed to. And he's just going to do anything he's not supposed to until something

00:04:59.600 stops him. So that's part of the fun. Now, some smart people noted that being mean to senior citizens 0.75

00:05:08.940 might not be the best election strategy when you're already behind on senior citizens, or you're

00:05:15.480 losing ground on senior citizens. But I don't know. This one's kind of a break even, because it's 0.55

00:05:23.940 sufficiently funny that he gets some points for that. You know, it's part of a larger strategy to

00:05:30.640 keep the energy up for his supporters. But I could see the point. I could see the point that anything

00:05:38.760 that looks like it's making fun of senior citizens, probably not the ideal time to do it. But as a

00:05:45.580 person who does humor for a living, I appreciated it. Might cost them the election, but sometimes a good

00:05:53.780 joke has a price. That might be the price on this one. It was totally worth it. In fun technology news,

00:06:03.700 there's a new development in solar cells that could double their efficiency fairly easily. That's the

00:06:10.660 fun part is that it won't be hard. So this new, this new discovery is that this chemical or compound or

00:06:20.180 whatever it is called parovskites or parovskites or parovskites. Let's, let's just assume there's a

00:06:30.020 word I can't pronounce. That's a, that's a thing that they, I guess I can put it in liquid form and

00:06:36.460 then coat it on top of existing solar cells to make them more powerful. But you could also use them by

00:06:43.820 themselves to make solar cells. So here's how big a deal it could be. Current solar cells max out at

00:06:51.280 about 22% efficiency. And it looks like using current technology, you'd be capped at about 22%.

00:06:59.120 Or maybe somebody said 28% or something. But anyway, the note, and this new chemical can bounce that up

00:07:06.940 to 28%, but it could get up to 40%. So we might be able to take solar from 22% to 40%. And that could

00:07:17.540 be sort of a next, I don't know, 24 months situation. It's not going to take forever to commercialize

00:07:25.300 this. So if it works, and there's no downside that we haven't discovered, solar cells could be twice as

00:07:32.460 efficient in two years. Now I, I bring you back to the Adams law of slow moving disasters.

00:07:40.540 When you look at climate change, if nothing improved, and we just kept going the way we're going,

00:07:47.340 yeah, probably a problem. Probably a problem. In my view. But how do you account for all the things

00:07:56.480 that will get invented in the next 80 years? Well, who had this on their list? Who, who made their

00:08:03.920 long range climate model, in which they wrote in to their assumptions, and by 2022, solar cell efficiency

00:08:13.720 will double? Who had that? Maybe they did. I don't know. But I would guess that they do not have

00:08:21.760 technological developments in their models. All right. So that's cool.

00:08:30.400 Did, did you all see the video of Wolf Blitzer attempting to have a professional interview with

00:08:38.940 Nancy Pelosi? It didn't go well. So Nancy Pelosi, for whatever reason, she was, she was in a,

00:08:46.820 let's say a combative mood. So we'll put it that way. You can, you can put other words on,

00:08:54.200 on her demeanor, but I'll just say she was combative. And you have to see it just, you could

00:09:01.140 just Google Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi, it'll pop right up. And what's funny about it is Wolf

00:09:07.680 Blitzer is sort of a, he's sort of a soft-spoken guy. For a, for a television personality, he looks like

00:09:15.500 he would be an introvert that just also has a television show. And so Nancy's sort of in her 0.76

00:09:22.280 aggressive alpha, alpha mode. And he's just sort of in his, you know, low key mode. And she's talking

00:09:29.720 over him and he, and he's talking under her. And it's like, it's not going well, right? She's talking

00:09:35.680 over, she's aggressive. He's just trying to be professional, low key here. And then the last thing

00:09:42.020 he says, and the topic was the stimulus package, and he was trying to convey the importance to

00:09:50.220 Nancy Pelosi's own district, as well as the country, about getting some relief out there for food 1.00

00:09:57.080 fairly quickly. And he gets to the, he gets to the end of the interview and he just tosses this,

00:10:04.800 he just, he just tosses in a line about seeing Nancy Pelosi's constituents begging for food on the

00:10:11.980 streets. And he just, he just sort of, he just puts that shiv in there nice and smooth. It's like 0.89

00:10:19.600 the sharpest little shiv. You don't even feel it going in. You're like, what was that? Oh my goodness,

00:10:26.360 there's a shiv. It's all the way through my abdomen. You have to see it just to see how smoothly 0.96

00:10:32.140 he put that in right at the end before he signed off with her. It was, it was TV magic. So good job,

00:10:39.320 Wolf Blitzer. And as others have noted, it feels like CNN and the anti-Trump people

00:10:47.360 might be feeling a little, a little more aggressive about the Democrats going after them. We'll see.

00:10:55.480 Um, I guess the, uh, William Barr and the attorney general, basically William Barr, uh, there won't

00:11:05.940 be any, uh, charges based on all of the unmasking. Remember all the big stories about Susan Rice and

00:11:13.340 the unmasking and too many Americans got unmasked, which means that they could be surveilled by the

00:11:20.460 government. Apparently nothing, nothing about that was illegal in any way that could be proven in a

00:11:27.820 court of law. Here's the thing that bothers me about the entire, uh, Russia collusion hoax.

00:11:38.460 All of the people involved from the department of justice, the FBI, the CIA, you know, everybody,

00:11:45.160 they're all high-end operators, meaning they're, they're either lawyers themselves or they've been

00:11:52.880 around lawyers or they're working with lawyers. So they know how to stay out of trouble. And I have

00:11:58.960 this, this bad feeling that there will be an actual documented coup against the United States,

00:12:07.080 you know, legally elected government, the Trump administration in the first term,

00:12:10.800 and that it would be proven and known and historical fact and still no real crimes except for the one

00:12:20.360 lawyer who maybe falsified something on a document might be the only one because everybody else sort of

00:12:27.760 knows where the line is and they know they can pretend to know something they don't. And that's not

00:12:33.440 illegal. Most of the time they know they can, uh, over interpret data, probably get away with it and just

00:12:42.280 say, oops, oops, I guess we made a mistake, but it's not illegal. So it's starting to look, uh, yeah, it's

00:12:51.460 starting to look like everybody's going to get away with it, uh, which is alarming. Um, so I turned on the, uh,

00:12:59.500 Amy Coney Barrett hearings yesterday and of course it lasted many hours, but I happened to turn it on

00:13:06.480 at an especially interesting part. I caught, uh, Ben Sass, Senator Sass, you know, talking to, uh,

00:13:15.620 Barrett and I thought to myself, wow, he's asking really professional, good questions. He's adding

00:13:24.740 context. He's so well-spoken. He's obviously very smart, very well-informed. And then she's answering

00:13:31.580 and her answers are just like, you know, cracklingly brilliant. You know, she's, she's,

00:13:36.840 she's super smart. That's pretty obvious. Um, and these two people who were, you know, one being

00:13:44.100 nominated to the highest court, the other serving in her, you know, our highest, uh, elected capacity as a,

00:13:51.140 as a Senator and who was not a president. And I thought, I'm really proud of my country.

00:13:58.440 Those two people talking made me feel good about America, honestly, because they were both just

00:14:05.260 so smart and well-spoken and professional, et cetera. And then Chris Coons gets up for the, uh,

00:14:13.380 for the Democrats. And I'm thinking, okay, okay, here's, I guess the happy part's over.

00:14:18.940 You expect the Republican will be a little kinder to the nominee. And then Chris Coons

00:14:24.700 questions her. And even though it was, uh, I guess you could call it a hostile questioning

00:14:31.220 because he's on the other side, but completely polite, completely professional, uh, all of his

00:14:38.140 points, well, well-reasoned, completely rational, even if you don't like where he was going.

00:14:44.780 And I thought to myself, damn, this guy's good too. This guy's really good. He's on the other team,

00:14:53.100 you know, maybe from you. Uh, I've certainly heard him say things I didn't agree with in the past,

00:14:58.760 but he's a smart, capable, really good at what he does. At least in terms of public presentation,

00:15:07.640 that's all I know. So there were, there were three of these professionals. And again,

00:15:12.760 you know, Barrett was amazing with their answers, very strong. And I really, I had this,

00:15:18.520 I had a moment, I had a moment. You probably had this, this experience if you're American.

00:15:25.760 There are times when you fall in love with America. Have you ever had that experience?

00:15:30.660 You can hate America. You can be a, you can be a critic. You can complain all day long about

00:15:35.640 everything that's wrong with the country. We're, we're designed to do that. That's one of the

00:15:39.740 things that, that's one of the things that's good about America is that we complain about everything,

00:15:43.840 which makes us try to fix things. So it's a, it's a positive thing. I have this great feeling

00:15:49.840 about America and I even tweeted about it. It's like, wow, really, really strong people. And if

00:15:57.040 these are the people who are in charge running the country, I'm feeling pretty good about it.

00:16:02.620 Well, that didn't last. That didn't last. So Maisie Arano gets up there and I'm thinking,

00:16:12.480 oh, okay. The kindest thing I could say is you're no Chris Coons, if you know what I mean.

00:16:20.140 You're no Ben Sass. You're no Amy Coney Barrett. Whatever the hell that is you're doing,

00:16:27.620 that just looks stupid. I'm sorry. She just looks stupid and she's embarrassing. And when I see her 0.98

00:16:37.240 as a representative of the country, I think that's not a good look. I hope nobody's watching this.

00:16:45.000 And then, um, who's the other? Blumenthal. And then Blumenthal goes, I forget which order they were in.

00:16:52.600 And I'm listening to Blumenthal and I'm thinking, oh my God. Oh my God. All of those good feelings I

00:17:01.220 had about the competence of our leadership evaporated. And again, I'm being very careful

00:17:07.520 not to make this about Democrat or Republican. They just happen to be two extra stupid people.

00:17:14.800 I don't know how the hell they got their jobs, really. When you see like a Josh Hawley or you see

00:17:22.140 Ben Sass or you see Chris Coons, you see Amy, you know, Coney Barrett, you're seeing people operating

00:17:30.080 at a really high level, right? Really smart people. And then you see Maisie and then you see Maisie

00:17:36.860 Virona and then you see, uh, uh, Dick Blumenthal and you think, how did they get in there?

00:17:43.220 How can they be in the same club? You know, it just doesn't, it's mind boggling. And then Booker,

00:17:50.000 Cory Booker. Now Cory Booker is someone who, and I imagine this would be true of Virona and Blumenthal

00:17:56.500 as well. If any of these three people took an IQ test, I imagine they'd do great. If any of them took,

00:18:03.300 uh, in fact, I think Booker was a, uh, uh, what kind of a scholar? I mean, he has, he has scholarly

00:18:09.320 academic credentials that are the highest level. So I'm sure that they, you know, scholastically,

00:18:15.940 these are three really accomplished people. Don't want to take that away from them, but they don't act

00:18:23.720 capable in public. I don't know what's up with that. And we know that it's possible because we just

00:18:30.500 saw Chris Coons do it. We saw Ben Sasse do it. It can be done. We know it can be done,

00:18:36.780 but they can't do it for some reason. Now it could be that they were the designated attack dogs. So

00:18:42.720 maybe they were, they may have been assigned the job of going hard. So, you know, you have,

00:18:49.080 you have to be a little careful about how much is their personality and how much is them, you know,

00:18:53.700 doing the work of the party. Uh, the funnest, the most fun story, the funnest, uh, story is that

00:19:01.700 Hunter Biden's laptop. This is just the weirdest 2020 story. This is just so perfect. Nothing could

00:19:09.820 be more perfect than this story, except the next one that'll happen tomorrow because 2020 is just

00:19:15.840 lit. So apparently, uh, sometime in the past, uh, Hunter Biden had taken a laptop, his own laptop in

00:19:25.320 for service and he never picked it up. And so the owner of the repair shop ended up figuring out

00:19:34.160 whose it was and giving it to, uh, uh, Rudy Giuliani. Now, as someone on Twitter who was a lawyer said,

00:19:42.660 some legal advice, if somebody leaves a laptop at your computer repair store, don't give it to Rudy

00:19:50.080 Giuliani. That's probably not the most legal thing anybody ever did, but it happened. So not only is

00:19:59.740 there allegedly photos of Hunter Biden, uh, smoking crack and having sex or something, I don't know. I saw

00:20:08.180 one picture that alleges to be him asleep with a crack pipe still in his mouth. I don't know if

00:20:13.940 that's real or not, but, uh, that's the story, whether it was real or not. And I guess in there,

00:20:21.080 there's a email that indicates that, uh, vice president Biden, when he was vice president,

00:20:27.560 did meet with a top executive of, uh, the Burisma, uh, company that Hunter Biden was working for.

00:20:36.980 Now keep in mind that Joe Biden had said he, he didn't talk to Hunter Biden about Burisma and what

00:20:43.640 Hunter was doing in Ukraine, but now there's an email that indicates that not only did, uh, they

00:20:50.600 probably talk, but, uh, Biden met with a high official of Burisma and, uh, and it's not looking good.

00:21:00.240 It's not looking good. Um, oh, somebody is saying it's an abandoned work product in some states. So

00:21:11.800 there, so there might be a state state law that allows the computer shop operator to do what he did.

00:21:18.500 We don't know that. So I will revise my legal advice because you should not take legal advice from me.

00:21:25.060 Um, um, all right. So, so that story I think is going to be, I think it will be a lot like the

00:21:37.880 unmasking story. I feel like the Hunter Biden thing is going to be a whole bunch of things that you're

00:21:43.700 pretty sure should result in some kind of legal action, but won't, or you're pretty sure it should

00:21:49.900 change the election, but it won't. I feel as though the election is already past the point

00:21:56.400 where something, uh, where a revelation of this size will make any difference.

00:22:02.200 You know, maybe six months ago, this might've made a little difference,

00:22:06.720 but I don't know if it makes any difference now. Um, apparently Trump said out loud, and I don't,

00:22:15.500 I'm trying to remember if he said this directly before, I think he might've, uh, at his speech

00:22:21.320 yesterday, he said that black lives matter is a racist, uh, uh, and intends to cause division,

00:22:28.840 the racist and they intend to cause division. Now, of course he says the black lives matter movement,

00:22:35.420 as opposed to the idea of black lives matter, which as far as I know, nobody, nobody disagrees with the 0.99

00:22:42.420 idea of it, but he's talking about the organization and that they're racist and that they intend to

00:22:48.860 cause division. This is reason enough to reelect him. You know, if you were looking for one reason,

00:22:57.280 like what's my one reason to vote for Trump? And I would say the fact that he would call out black 0.97

00:23:02.800 lives matter as being a racist organization or racist movement, as he put it. I think that that's

00:23:10.340 really brave because you know what the right answer is, right? Everybody knows the right answer is

00:23:17.340 you need to be fully on board with the movement, but Trump is willing to say what is obvious to

00:23:24.060 most of us that it is a racist, uh, it is racist by its nature. It doesn't even, you don't even have to

00:23:30.920 get into the intentions of the people involved. It is just by its nature racist because it calls out

00:23:36.920 racist for, you know, special consideration. So you could say that's right or wrong, but you can't

00:23:43.320 say it's not racist. You might like it, but it's still racist. Um, and I think the president should

00:23:51.380 call that out so that I like that. And again, nobody is arguing the point of it. You know, every,

00:23:58.300 everybody agrees black lives matter. That's not the point. 1.00

00:24:00.960 So Nielsen ratings are way down TV rating for not only the NBA, but things like golf and horse racing.

00:24:13.060 So it looks like there's some major shift happening or not. I don't know. You would think the sports

00:24:20.340 would be more watched than ever because we don't have as many forms of entertainment, right? If you

00:24:26.160 don't have as many forms of entertainment, the ones that you do have should get more, more business,

00:24:33.020 but the, the opposite is happening. And, uh, remind me to talk about Kim Jong-un. I'm being prompted

00:24:41.360 there and I'll, I'll do that in a minute. Um, and I, I wonder if it's just because habits got broken.

00:24:48.920 I've talked about the book habit by Charles doing, and it talks about how you can program yourself into

00:24:55.860 habits. And one of the things I learned when I was doing the Dilbert TV show for, you know,

00:25:01.980 two half seasons back in years ago, uh, one of the things I learned is that once you built an audience

00:25:08.080 in a time slot, even if that audience loved your show, if you move it to a different day or a different

00:25:14.620 time, you'll, you're going to lose a big chunk of your audience. Now there are cases where you'll

00:25:20.260 gain audience because you're moving to a better time slot, but in general, people are habit based

00:25:25.420 and you mess with their habit in any way and they'll lose the habit. And I think that watching

00:25:31.220 television, just watching television in general was a habit most of us had. And then we lost it

00:25:38.640 because there was nothing on TV worth watching except the news. And you could watch the news and,

00:25:43.220 you know, on your phone, et cetera. So I think that one of the biggest underappreciated effects of the

00:25:51.140 pandemic is that it broke our habits. And once your habits are broken, then you have to redesign your

00:25:57.080 life. And it looks like people decided, decided consciously maybe to redesign their lives without

00:26:04.320 as much TV. I feel like that's what happened. And I think that that would be a permanent change.

00:26:10.740 Um, so there's now evidence that, uh, both the Biden and the Trump rallies have spread

00:26:20.380 coronavirus. The, the alleged, uh, Biden part of that is trivial to people, I guess, or something

00:26:28.120 at one event, but, uh, the Trump, and that makes sense because not many people are at a Biden event,

00:26:34.440 but, uh, there are now 16 cases linked to an outdoor Trump event at an airport, uh, September 18th.

00:26:44.200 And, and then some other one, three people from some other event in Duluth or something.

00:26:48.980 So what do you make of that? Does that tell you that we should not have mass events? Yes. Yes,

00:26:58.800 it does. It tells you exactly that it does. If, if this data is correct, it does tell you,

00:27:06.240 or at least it's, you know, more indication. It's not a scientifically, uh, you know, locked down

00:27:13.520 point, but it's more indication that mass gatherings are, you know, a special problem for,

00:27:20.600 for coronavirus. Does that mean that the president shouldn't do it? Well, that's a different

00:27:26.480 calculation. It's a different calculation because we live in a world where people take risks.

00:27:33.460 Suppose none of these 16 people, uh, were hospitalized, which is a good chance.

00:27:41.720 And suppose that I imagine that they also gave it to other people and suppose that nobody was,

00:27:48.320 nobody was hospitalized. I guess that's possible, right? So we don't know that, but it's entirely

00:27:55.040 possible that, uh, that political rallies have killed people. We, would you agree that that's

00:28:02.520 possible? There's no evidence of it, but just statistically, would you agree that we could

00:28:07.880 conclude now that Trump, uh, Trump rallies had a pretty good chance? I don't know what the odds are.

00:28:16.040 You know, I don't know if the odds are over 5% or if they're over 1%, but there's some chance

00:28:21.840 that Trump rallies killed people. So what do you think about that? Therefore was a big mistake?

00:28:27.280 Probably not. Because anytime you get, you know, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 people changing what they're

00:28:36.940 doing, there's going to be risk, right? Every, every, uh, sporting event has risk. Every time you get in

00:28:45.500 your car has a risk. So the question is not whether these caused infection. I think everybody thought

00:28:51.260 there would be some, uh, the question is whether it made sense, you know, what was the benefit

00:28:58.280 equal to the cost? Well, if you think that the cost of Trump losing the election, the cost was

00:29:05.460 socialism and the destruction of the country, if you believe that would be the natural progression,

00:29:10.660 well, then it's worth it. If those events got Trump elected and that was the only thing that

00:29:17.440 prevented us from going full socialist and just, you know, destroying the country, yeah, totally worth

00:29:23.740 it. Um, and even if he doesn't get elected, the risk, you know, the risk might still look like it was

00:29:31.580 worth it. It just didn't work out. So, you know, you, you could differ on the question of whether it was

00:29:38.460 worth it, but we now have pretty good indication that it does cause, uh, infections, which

00:29:44.880 shouldn't be a big surprise, right? Um, Webster's dictionary had a little rapid change yesterday.

00:29:53.360 Did you see that story? So when Maisie Hirona, Senator Hirona was, I guess, talking to Barrett and,

00:30:02.780 uh, Barrett had used the phrase sexual preference and, uh, Hirona was, uh, schooling her and telling her

00:30:13.760 that no, it's sexual orientation. And the Senator's point is that your orientation is what you're born

00:30:22.700 with. And that's, that's her view of the world that your, your sexuality is what you're, you're born

00:30:28.240 with. It's not something you choose later. It's like, I think I'll be gay. So that's what the Senator

00:30:35.160 says. And she says further that saying it's sexual preference is offensive. And apparently, uh,

00:30:45.320 online Webster's dictionary updated their definition to add that sexual preference is offensive in real

00:30:54.100 time. Basically, I think before the, uh, the hearings were even over for the day, Webster had changed its

00:31:03.680 online definition of the fricking word. Does that scare you? It should. They're changing the definition

00:31:12.000 of a word to make it match the Democrats preferred a narrative. And it happened in real time. That's

00:31:19.700 amazing. Now it doesn't change much, but here's what I would add to it. How could you have a sexual

00:31:26.580 preference without the sexual orientation first? How does that happen? How are they different?

00:31:34.340 Now, I, I'm not the one who's going to argue over which word you should use because, you know, that's

00:31:39.460 just, I call that word thinking. You can't settle an argument by what word you choose to use on it.

00:31:45.420 That's just talking about words. It's not talking about the base understanding. But here's what I would

00:31:51.480 add. Uh, there's no such thing as a sexual preference that is disconnected from your sexual

00:31:59.600 orientation. In other words, the way you're born gives you all of your preferences, right? Why is it

00:32:07.720 different? I have a preference for certain sports. I have a preference for certain foods. I have preferences

00:32:17.040 for certain colors. Pretty much all of them I was born with, I think, because I, you know, I had them

00:32:23.560 when I was little, you know, green was one of my favorite colors when I was little, still one of my

00:32:29.060 favorite colors. You know, the, the food I ate for the most part, you know, you, you develop some adult

00:32:35.060 food preferences, but largely the same stuff I liked when I was young is the same stuff I would like

00:32:40.920 now. I'm just a little better at staying away from junk food. That's it. Um, but I would add this,

00:32:46.860 to, uh, the Senator's understanding just, just to mess up the whole conversation. Are you ready?

00:32:56.320 People can change their sexual preference.

00:33:01.300 That's it. People can. Now, I believe that what I just said is counter to all science. So let me put

00:33:09.920 that out there. As far as I know, science is very solid on the fact that you're born with your

00:33:16.780 sexual orientation. And I believe that that's largely true that you're born with a sexual 0.89

00:33:23.160 orientation, but I'll tell you as a hypnotist, I am well aware of situations in which people have

00:33:32.380 changed their sexual preference intentionally. In other words, they just wanted to see if they could

00:33:38.840 program themselves to have a different sexual preference and they succeeded. And then they changed

00:33:44.640 it back. Now you could say, well, if you changed it back, it wasn't real, but it was real when it was

00:33:49.660 happening. There were people who said, I like this kind of activity. And now I'm going to see if I can

00:33:57.700 intentionally program myself to be a different person who likes a different thing. And you can do it.

00:34:04.340 You can absolutely do it. And I would argue that there are probably lots of cases in the wild

00:34:11.020 where some charismatic and or bad personality program somebody to have a different preference.

00:34:21.620 Preferences are very programmable. Now you are still born with a certain bias. So that's true.

00:34:31.960 You know, the day you come out of your mother or test tube or father or whoever you come out of

00:34:38.340 in our amazing technological world. But when you're born, you do have really strong orientation and

00:34:48.040 bias toward things, which looks like a preference later in life. But what science in general,

00:34:55.160 somebody in the comments is saying that I'm lying. I'm not. I'm not. Why would I lie about that? That

00:35:03.860 would be a weird thing to lie about, wouldn't it? Because I wouldn't be lying to make money. I wouldn't

00:35:09.080 be lying to make a, I wouldn't be lying to be more popular. What would that lie buy me exactly? And what

00:35:16.720 would be the point of me telling a lie on that point? You know, I don't think there would be any point to

00:35:22.940 it. So anybody who is born with a certain orientation, and nobody tries to influence it,

00:35:31.140 and they don't try to change it, probably, probably their preference and their orientation become

00:35:36.540 exactly the same. But I'm just telling you that human beings can be reprogrammed way more than you

00:35:44.600 think. Way, way, way more than you think. Now, I'm uncertain whether your life experience can change

00:35:52.760 those preferences. I would think so. In extreme cases, you know, probably in extreme cases, it could

00:35:59.060 change your preference. But I don't think it happens often. I wouldn't, I wouldn't think that's even

00:36:03.720 anything to think about. It probably is just in the weirdest case, maybe somebody has a traumatic

00:36:09.640 experience that's involved. This involves their primary orientation, and maybe they talk themselves

00:36:15.620 into a different, a different preference over time. Possible. So if anybody is new to my periscopes,

00:36:23.880 let me, let me remind you, I am the most pro-LGBTQ person you've ever met in your life.

00:36:31.740 I am left of Ernie. Here's what I mean.

00:36:34.380 A conservative might say that they have problems with LGBTQ people or problems with what rights they

00:36:43.860 have or something, right? You can imagine there are people on the right who've got problems with

00:36:48.420 that community. So I'm not in, I'm not in that group. Then you can imagine, let's say, Bernie Sanders,

00:36:54.460 who would be a good example of somebody who is the most open, you know, the most, the most aggressively

00:37:02.040 wants equal rights for the LGBT community. Now I'm left of that, in which I think Bernie should suck a

00:37:09.660 dick. Because I don't think it's enough that he's just okay with it. I think he needs to spend a couple

00:37:15.900 of weekends living the life. I'm just joking. I'm just joking. But the only way you could get left of

00:37:25.120 Bernie would be to make it mandatory. So that's the joke. But I am left of Bernie on other stuff,

00:37:31.520 such as drugs. Bernie would legalize marijuana, so would I, but I would go further, I'd legalize

00:37:38.600 mushrooms, maybe some other stuff. And if you're over 80, I should, I would say you could do whatever

00:37:43.900 drugs you want. Because you're over 80, damn it, do whatever you want.

00:37:47.660 So, and I'm quite serious when I say I'm the most pro-LGBTQ person you've ever met in your life.

00:37:57.020 More of the better. More of the better. Some of you might not love that position,

00:38:03.220 but you'll get used to it. All right. Let's see. So Trump says he's going to be in a, I guess he

00:38:13.420 agreed to do a town hall on NBC on Thursday night. At the same time, the ABC will have a town hall

00:38:20.140 with Joe Biden. Is that just the best? What could be better than NBC and ABC having a town hall off

00:38:32.880 against each other for ratings in which people will watch either Biden or they'll watch Trump?

00:38:39.800 who do you think is going to get better ratings?

00:38:45.360 You know, no matter how much you like Biden, you don't really expect him to get good ratings,

00:38:50.520 do you? Now, I think a lot depends on what's the lead in show and, you know, what, what are the

00:38:55.920 ratings of CNN? I'm sorry. What are the ratings of NBC and ABC already? So whichever one is starting

00:39:03.460 with the better ratings, you know, as an advantage, but, uh, that is going to be fun. The fun part will

00:39:11.720 be switching back and forth. And by the way, how well, how well do Nielsen and other ratings companies

00:39:19.580 or, you know, whatever you'd call them, how, um, can Nielsen determine if you're switching back and

00:39:27.980 forth between two pieces of content? Uh, how would, how would they pick that up? Do they, do they measure

00:39:35.540 the actual, uh, cable box so they know exactly how much time you're spending? I don't know how they do

00:39:40.880 that, but that'll be fun to watch. All right, let's talk about, uh, uh, oh, it turns out that the new

00:39:49.780 update, uh, Kyle Rittenhouse. Apparently the gun he used is not going to be a legal problem. So

00:39:57.900 remember when all the news was about, he had a, he illegally had a gun that he crossed state lines

00:40:03.900 or something like that. It turns out that no charges will be, uh, there will be no charges related

00:40:10.700 to the gun. It looks like at least in this one County. And I don't, that still means he has to

00:40:17.460 answer for the, you know, the shooting itself, but it, it looks like he won't be charged with a gun

00:40:22.740 crime, which is new. All right. All right. Let's talk about masks. I will go back to my quiz.

00:40:33.800 All right. Reminding you, how would you do? Um, a lot of you've been thinking about this quiz. We'll

00:40:40.060 see what your answers are. 85% of people who got COVID wore masks. Therefore, the logical

00:40:47.100 conclusion is if you were watching Tucker Carlson last night, you know, that his conclusion was

00:40:53.320 masks don't work, or if they do work, they don't work very well because if 85% of the people who wore

00:41:02.720 a mask got the virus anyway, what's that say about masks, right? Masks don't work, right?

00:41:12.340 Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Do you know what this conclusion should be?

00:41:23.640 Almost everybody wore a mask. That's the conclusion. If, if everybody's wearing a mask, which is largely

00:41:34.120 true, right? If, if I go out in public, pretty much every person has a mask. They can't go in a store

00:41:42.180 without a mask and people don't wear masks at home for the most part. So really you're talking about

00:41:48.680 going in public and I'll bet just about everybody wore a mask. Now, does anybody believe that a mask

00:41:56.280 is designed to eliminate coronavirus? No. Nope. Nobody believes that masks are supposed to eliminate

00:42:05.700 all coronavirus. Everybody understands that whether masks work or masks don't work, in all cases,

00:42:15.020 whether they work or don't work, people who wear them will get the virus. You all agree with that,

00:42:20.960 right? Everybody knows that wearing the mask is not a hundred percent or even close to it in terms

00:42:27.080 of protection. The only thing you should get out of this is that pretty much everybody in the study was

00:42:34.840 wearing a mask. And what would, what would you know about somebody who didn't wear a mask? Well, in all

00:42:42.580 likelihood, somebody who didn't wear a mask under these conditions probably was somebody who knew they

00:42:49.300 weren't around dangerous situations. In other words, they were in areas where there wasn't much

00:42:54.820 coronavirus to begin with. In other words, they were not in a hot spot. Now, maybe they should have

00:43:00.480 worn their mask more often, but they could easily get away with it because there wasn't as much virus.

00:43:07.000 So this kind of thing is so freaking misleading to people who are not good at, somebody says,

00:43:14.580 you are lying. Lying about what? What am I lying about? What a weird comment. Somebody told me

00:43:21.840 there's some trolls who just come in and just say stuff like that. I'm guessing you're one of those.

00:43:28.780 All right. I'm going to take it to the next level. Are you mad at me yet? You will be. If you're not mad

00:43:35.840 at me yet, it's coming. Here's the part where I lose about two thirds of my audience. It goes like this.

00:43:51.280 So we all have to have a mask strategy, not just society, but you individually need to know, you know,

00:43:58.480 what are you going to do? What is your strategy? And let's say you're sure masks work or you mask,

00:44:06.440 you think masks might work, but you don't know. Or on this extreme, you're sure masks don't work.

00:44:12.520 What would be the strategy you would apply under each of those beliefs? Well, if you're sure masks work,

00:44:21.180 you should wear a mask. That's easy, right? You're sure they work, wear a mask. And most medical

00:44:28.300 professionals, the vast majority of medical professionals are sure they work and they

00:44:34.480 follow this strategy. They wear a mask. Now that doesn't mean they're right. And it doesn't mean

00:44:39.580 that masks work in all situations. It just means that if they believe this, this is the right strategy

00:44:46.580 that's compatible with the belief. If you think masks might work, but you're not sure, you think

00:44:54.360 there's some trade off, you know, but, but you think, yeah, they could work given that it's temporary

00:45:01.320 by its nature. Now temporary might be middle of next year, but still temporary. What would be the

00:45:07.320 right strategy? Well, if you're not sure, I would say you would wear a mask. That would be the better

00:45:14.680 strategy because you don't know if it works, it could be huge. You know, if it's true that they make

00:45:21.860 some difference. And let's say the difference was 10%. Let's say the difference was 20%. You know,

00:45:28.700 so it, it mostly doesn't work, but there's a solid 10, 20% difference. Is it worth it? Probably

00:45:36.600 because there are so many lives at stake. You're talking potentially millions of lives. So this would

00:45:42.580 be the most social thing you could do. Now, let me be clear. Could this be a mistake? Could you say,

00:45:50.780 well, they might work? And then you wear them because that makes sense to you. And then later

00:45:55.400 you find out studies come out that it was way worse to wear masks. That could happen. Totally,

00:46:02.280 right? Someday there could be a study. This is the, this is the ultimate final study. It's credible.

00:46:07.940 It's controlled. And it shows for sure that man, was that a big mistake back in the pandemic.

00:46:14.260 Everybody who wore a mask, they made it worse. So that's possible. So what should you do? Probably

00:46:23.640 still wear a mask. Because what are the odds of that happening? Nobody knows. I would say not that

00:46:30.420 high. Probably somebody's going to have a study like that, but may not be credible. And then let's,

00:46:35.920 how about this one? Let's say you're sure masks don't work. You're really sure they don't work.

00:46:41.500 What, what is the strategy? Well, it doesn't matter. You're irrational because if you're sure

00:46:48.340 they don't work, that's not based on data. Why would you be sure of that? Most of the professionals

00:46:55.220 in the world who know things about masks and are in that world, they're doctors or they're

00:47:01.000 professionals. Far and away, the majority of them think it probably works. Might be wrong,

00:47:07.320 but that's all we know. Now you say, you're going to say to yourself, but Scott, Scott, Scott,

00:47:14.580 will you please look at this link I've got on Twitter and it will clear you up. You might

00:47:20.760 finally be informed, Scott, Scotty, Scotty, you might finally be informed if you follow my link

00:47:28.860 and you can clearly see from this story that masks have been tested and they don't work.

00:47:35.700 Just look at this test. See right here. And then I'll follow the link and I'll look at it

00:47:41.380 and it won't be there. Meaning that there is no proof the masks don't work at the end of that link.

00:47:48.520 And so I'll say, well, anybody else got a link? And somebody else will come in with the same amount of

00:47:54.760 certainty. And they'll say, Scott, you looked at the wrong link. Look at this link and look at this

00:48:03.440 study. Clearly shows it's a new study or it's an old study. Clearly shows masks do not work. So look

00:48:12.620 at that. So I go open the link and I look at it and there's nothing like that there. In fact, the actual

00:48:20.480 study says, and this is the important part, we can't really study this the way it should be studied

00:48:28.740 because it would be unethical. In other words, it would be unethical to send half of your doctors

00:48:35.700 into the hotspot without masks. Even if those doctors, even if those doctors said we volunteer,

00:48:44.840 look, we need to know the answer. We volunteer. We know the risk and we won't wear masks. It's still

00:48:52.080 unethical. Because there's such a strong belief that it probably makes a difference, even if it

00:49:01.300 doesn't, that you can't put together a study that would have a control base or a control group. If you

00:49:08.540 don't have a study with a control group, you don't know anything. Because if we've learned nothing,

00:49:15.300 it's that every study that doesn't have a control group is just garbage. Sometimes they're right,

00:49:22.080 sometimes they're wrong. But I think it's by accident or chance or something, but you can't

00:49:27.300 depend on it. All right. So everybody who thinks their sure masks don't work, you're in the irrational

00:49:35.920 group. Could you be right? Yes. Yes. Let me say that as many times as you need to hear it. Could this

00:49:45.880 group end up, you know, someday in the future, could we find out that they nailed it and they were right?

00:49:52.940 Yes. But there is no evidence of that at the moment. And it would be irrational to act on something

00:50:00.960 that has zero evidence when the stakes are this high. Okay. That should take care of 40% of my

00:50:09.100 audience right there. All right. So I know a lot of you are getting really mad right now and you're

00:50:15.560 having the same experience that the left does. When I point out that the fine people hoax is a hoax,

00:50:23.980 and all you have to do is go read the transcript and you can see for yourself. What happens when I

00:50:29.000 point that out? Do they ever do this? Oh, really? There's more to the story? Let me look at it.

00:50:35.000 Oh, follow that link. Yeah. Oh, my goodness. I never saw the second part of the quote. It is a hoax.

00:50:42.280 Yes. Once you read the second part, it's obvious it's a hoax. Do they ever do that? No. No. Not one time

00:50:50.100 do you see anybody do that. But is that different than this? All of you who are anti-mask,

00:50:58.220 all of the Alex Berenson followers, et cetera, all of you who are sure that the mask doesn't work

00:51:05.860 are having a fine people hoax experience right now. In other words, cognitive dissonance

00:51:10.600 is making you a little bit angry at me. And one of the things that will happen is you're not going

00:51:16.540 to be able to hear me right. In other words, you will reinterpret what you just heard and saw

00:51:22.680 into something different. And then you will angrily send me a tweet after I'm done here

00:51:28.440 that will show you don't understand what I said, but you're really mad at your misunderstanding of

00:51:34.380 what I said. That's going to happen. It's probably already happening. If I were to open my Twitter

00:51:39.980 right now, you would probably already see the cognitive dissonance. All right. So this is one of

00:51:47.920 those tests where you can say, I keep laughing at those fine people hoax people with cognitive

00:51:53.400 dissonance, but is it happening to me right now? And it might be. Oh, thanks for the reminder.

00:52:01.400 Kim Jong-un, I did see finally, maybe yesterday, a video of Kim Jong-un on talking and on video.

00:52:10.660 And it looks to be a current one. So my current, revised, updated conspiracy theory,

00:52:18.200 which was just for fun, I told you at the time, is that he does seem to be alive. So good for Kim

00:52:24.700 Jong-un. And I'm kind of glad because the last thing we want is uncertainty. And one thing he does

00:52:32.760 bring is at least a little bit more certainty. And he does seem to like it.

00:52:40.660 Or he does seem to like the president. All right. Let's see. I'm just going to look at some of your

00:52:50.580 comments here, see how we did. Hypnosis, somebody's asking me. Well, you need more of a question than

00:52:57.220 just the word hypnosis with a question mark. Oh, somebody's asking about peanut allergy. Is it the

00:53:06.100 peanut allergic person who has the responsibility? Or is it the rest of society who is not allergic to

00:53:14.060 peanuts, who has a responsibility to keep it away? I'm not sure that works as an analogy to masks.

00:53:20.520 So I'm not going to go there. Oh, MSNBC, if you're joining late, that got bumped because of the

00:53:31.820 Coney Barrett hearings. So that will be rescheduled for another time.

00:53:36.780 Okay. Somebody says that I'm correct. Oh, so there's a doctor who's watching right now who says that my

00:53:50.880 mask analysis is correct. Thank you. Mask transcript. No, there's no mask transcript.

00:53:59.860 Mask help prevent, blah, blah, blah. We don't, well, I'm not going to talk more about masks. I've said, I've said

00:54:10.180 all I need to say about masks. So this is one of those loser think situations where I talk about your talent

00:54:21.620 stack being important to being able to analyze situations. My guess is that there's nobody with an

00:54:29.580 economics degree or very few who would have had a different opinion than I do about masks. So let

00:54:37.180 me put that out there as a challenge to you. My challenge is that anybody who had the sufficient

00:54:42.960 training to know how to compare things, and I would say, we'll use economists as our measurement.

00:54:50.600 And economists would know how to compare things. And I would guess that most of them would agree

00:54:54.640 with what I just said. I had the experience yesterday as I went into a store and I just forgot

00:55:02.780 my mask. And I didn't realize that I wasn't wearing it until I got all the way up to pay. And I felt

00:55:08.700 like, you know, I felt like, you know, patient zero or something. I never felt more uneasy in a store

00:55:17.320 knowing that the other people are like, oh, he's going to kill us.

00:55:23.160 What about mathematicians? Mathematicians are not trained to compare things the way economists are

00:55:29.700 trained to compare things. That would be a different skill. All right. Yes, in vitamin D,

00:55:36.980 apparently there is a real, there will be a controlled vitamin D test for coronavirus. So that's just

00:55:44.100 being organized now. So I don't know how long that will take. Maybe three months or so. We'll know if

00:55:50.280 vitamin D is the big deal we thought it was. The Zelenko protocol. You haven't heard much about that

00:56:01.660 lately, have you? Somebody's prompted me in the comments. So I'm blocking people on Twitter

00:56:11.680 when they say, so Scott, where's your hydroxychloroquine? Well, you've been pumping that

00:56:18.580 hydroxychloroquine, Scott. No, I haven't. No, I've been doing the opposite. I've been telling you

00:56:24.860 that every day that goes by, and I believe I've been saying this probably since March, I said that

00:56:31.340 every day that goes by where we're not, we're not sure that hydroxychloroquine works probably tells

00:56:38.700 you it doesn't. So having now gotten all the way into October without any conclusive, you know, real

00:56:47.400 solid, solid hydroxychloroquine results, the kind that would cause everybody to start using it.

00:56:55.460 In other words, if you hear that all the major hospitals are just using that as their go-to,

00:57:01.100 maybe not hospitals, but doctors will say, then I'd say, okay, well, they've looked at all the

00:57:06.840 evidence. They've seen the results. It works. But my guess is that there is less hydroxychloroquine

00:57:13.640 being prescribed today than there was in May. Does anybody want to take that bet? Anybody want

00:57:22.280 to take the bet that the people who are most qualified, the doctors, the researchers, the people

00:57:28.220 who are most qualified to determine, even though we don't have perfect information yet, but the ones who

00:57:33.460 are in the best shape to know what studies are telling you something that's useful, I'll bet there

00:57:39.520 is less of it prescribed. So my last update was that I think I'd put it down to a 30% chance at most

00:57:48.980 that hydroxychloroquine is some kind of a game changer or it makes a difference. I think I would lower that

00:57:55.580 again. So I think I'll lower that again to 20%. So I'd say there's no more than a 20% chance of maybe 10%,

00:58:03.900 maybe less, that hydroxychloroquine will be the answer. Now, I think that was a sensible way to go.

00:58:11.880 Early indications were so strong that optimism was, you know, it was warranted. But the further we went

00:58:21.820 without confirming it, because if the signal was as strong as Zelenko said, Zelenko's claim is that

00:58:29.260 basically it eliminates the problem. If that were true, surely there would be enough other people who

00:58:36.500 were trying it in the same way and they would be reporting the same thing and it would just be so

00:58:41.640 confirmed there would be no doubt about it. I think at this point we have to assume

00:58:46.400 that the odds of hydroxychloroquine being a big deal, maybe 10%. I think I'll put it at 10%.

00:58:56.080 Again, it's not impossible that the entire thing was a, you know, a big mind effort and really it

00:59:05.180 worked the whole time. It's possible. I just say the odds, the odds just keep plunging every day that

00:59:10.600 goes by without confirming it. I will offer your bet, if somebody wants to make me a bet on it.

00:59:20.540 I don't know how you would prove the bet, because we don't believe any studies these days.

00:59:31.420 Somebody says the fine people hoax is the best analogy for hydroxychloroquine.

00:59:36.280 Is it? Is it? I don't know. I don't like analogies for trying to understand the world.

00:59:44.460 They're good for explaining something the first time. That's the only thing they're good for.

00:59:49.480 Do I read the posts on locals? I do. Yes. Now, I can't read every single thing that people send me.

00:59:55.860 So at this point, I'm getting messages from, you know, LinkedIn, email, text, you know, various apps

01:00:02.980 on locals, on Twitter, etc. So I get far more messages than I can read them all. But I put more

01:00:11.560 effort into reading the messages on locals, because those are subscribers.

01:00:20.540 Did you hear Trump on, who is it? The Johnson & Johnson thing? Oh, one person got sick,

01:00:29.220 so they postponed or they put it on hold. Yeah. I don't know if we can tell anything from the Johnson & Johnson

01:00:37.320 trial, because it's not unusual that one person has a weird illness. And it might not be related to the

01:00:45.480 vaccine. But it's just good for them to pause things until they can find out. So I don't know that we know

01:00:52.680 anything. That's kind of standard procedure. Somebody says masks equals slavery. Well, okay.

01:01:06.940 Somebody says they're pro-mask, but they're anti-mask mandate. I feel you could make that

01:01:13.760 argument. I'm not sure that a mandate makes any difference. Does it? Oh, let me give you an

01:01:20.460 update on California. Most of you know California has been mocked because the state updated its mask

01:01:27.880 guidance to say that you should wear your mask between bites at a restaurant. Literally, the

01:01:34.480 guidance in California is you have to lift your mask, take a bite, and then put your mask down while

01:01:40.560 you chew. And that's how you will enjoy your restaurant meal. Well, so I went out to eat last

01:01:47.580 night. And my observation is that exactly zero people in my town are obeying that California

01:01:57.060 regulation. And I like that. You know, I would be disappointed if my town didn't use, you know,

01:02:03.680 masks, because that feels reasonable enough, as I've explained. But the mask, the part where you can

01:02:11.080 eat in a restaurant, but you have to have your mask on unless you're putting the food in your mouth.

01:02:15.260 I think everyone in California, as one, looked at that and said, nope, nope. You know, you always

01:02:27.220 know when you've gone too far, when 100% of the public just says, nope, at exactly the same time,

01:02:34.160 I would be willing to bet that I will never see a single person wearing their mask and only taking it

01:02:41.040 off to bite and then putting it back on. I'll bet I'll never see even one person do that. And you

01:02:48.040 know what? Every person in the restaurant I was in last night probably would have accepted being

01:02:55.220 arrested to not have to comply with that. You know, I don't, obviously, I'm not a mind reader. I don't

01:03:01.900 know what other people are thinking. But my sense of it was that you would have to put me and you'd have

01:03:07.920 to put the chains on me. You'd have to drag me to jail to get me to wear my mask in between bites.

01:03:15.920 All right? There is such a thing as too far. And that is so unambiguously, clearly too far.

01:03:24.900 Nobody's going to do that. So California, if you're smart, you will rescind that because it makes you

01:03:31.600 look like freaking idiots. It just makes you look like idiots. Nobody's going to comply with that.

01:03:37.960 Nobody. All right. That's all for now. I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 14, 2020

Episode 1154 Scott Adams： Mask Science Explained, Preference Versus Orientation, Wolf Blitzes Pelosi, Hunter is Hunted

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript