Episode 1264 Scott Adams： All the News That's Fit to Sip. Get in Here.
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 10 minutes
Words per Minute
145.43428
Summary
In this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams from across the world, I tell you about all the stuff that's happening, and all the news that's fit to sip, as I like to say, but before that, is there something you're missing?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, hey everybody, come on in here, it's time, it's
00:00:09.120
time for Coffee with Scott Adams from across the world, well I suppose it depends where
00:00:14.820
you are, I might be where you are, could be, you could be right next door, I wouldn't even
00:00:19.680
know it, but I'm in French Polynesia still for a little bit longer and oh by the way
00:00:27.820
there's a, I think there is one day that I know I won't be able to Periscope coming
00:00:32.580
up, so if there's a day this week, I think it might be Thursday morning, not sure about
00:00:41.680
that, either Wednesday or Thursday I'm not going to be able to Periscope, so let me tell
00:00:48.940
you about all the stuff that's happening, all the news that's fit to sip as I like to
00:00:54.660
say, but before that, isn't there something you're missing, is there something you're
00:00:59.960
missing, yeah there is, it's called the simultaneous sip, Eric, Eric Finman, good to see you, and
00:01:08.740
do you have your cup or mug or glass, Eric, I hope you do and I hope the rest of you do
00:01:13.460
too, because, will I remember the entire toast, let's see, grab a cup or mug or glass, a tank
00:01:24.340
or chalice or stein, canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite
00:01:28.220
liquid I like, coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here
00:01:32.620
today, the thing that makes everything better, everything better, it's called the simultaneous
00:01:37.460
I will take you sip from the heavens now, go, oh, yes, so there's an awkwardness that I should
00:01:51.740
just call out, because I'm vacationing at a very nice place, I hesitate to show it to people,
00:02:02.280
because if they can't vacation at a nice place, it's just sort of gross to put it in people's
00:02:08.220
face, on the other hand, I do like a little bit of transparency in my life, and it would
00:02:15.180
be no secret to anybody that, especially for my honeymoon, I can go to a nice place, and
00:02:21.520
so I didn't think I would need to hide that from any of you, and I was hoping that some
00:02:26.020
of you would enjoy the tales from Bora Bora, so last night, Christine and I were on
00:02:32.060
doing dinner on the beach, there were tables there as part of the restaurant, as part of
00:02:36.880
the resort, and there was this fire dancing group entertaining us, and here's the funny
00:02:44.380
thing, there are so few people at this resort, I don't think I've seen more than 20 people
00:02:51.660
all week, and this is a place that would normally hold hundreds or a thousand or something, but
00:02:57.440
maybe 20 people I've seen in the entire resort, and it's the same, you know, couples you see
00:03:02.340
every time, now I don't know what the actual number is, I've only seen the same 20 people,
00:03:07.480
but, so there are maybe 12 of us total watching this show, that's it, just 12 people watching
00:03:15.260
this fire dancing show, so I thought, well that's not nearly enough, these guys put in
00:03:20.760
a lot of work to do this, you know, they're twirling these lit torches, so I fired up
00:03:27.580
Periscope, and I just started live streaming these fire dancers, and I didn't know what
00:03:34.460
to expect, but I think already there have been over a hundred thousand views, there are two
00:03:38.780
different videos, so between the two of them, a hundred thousand views, now in terms of viewers,
00:03:44.760
probably there will be a hundred thousand of them by the end of the day, you know, right
00:03:48.940
now it's views, but there'll probably be that many viewers, and I thought to myself, I wonder
00:03:54.300
if these guys know that they just went international, they literally were being streamed all over
00:04:00.800
the planet, with just this little thing in my hand, and a good cell signal, and that's
00:04:07.700
it, and suddenly their show was worldwide, and here's the funny part, I don't think they
00:04:13.280
know it, so yesterday, you know, they gave a show to the entire planet, tens of thousands
00:04:19.600
of audience members, the only people who don't know it is the people who gave the show, nobody
00:04:25.420
told them, so I just think that's an interesting little slice of life there, all right, interesting
00:04:31.020
thing, Twitter is introducing a new feature, which is getting mixed reviews before anybody
00:04:38.980
even sees it, that's the way things go, and the new feature is trying to get at these censorship
00:04:47.980
problems, well, not censorship, so much as fake news, it's more of a fake news solution, or attempted
00:04:56.280
solution, now of course, you know, from my other periscopes, that I'm always, always in favor of testing
00:05:04.360
a new solution, so those of you who are saying, my god, it's the end of the world, this new feature
00:05:10.480
will just be bad like everything else in the world, you might be right, it's entirely possible
00:05:16.660
that Twitter would rule, you know, roll out a new feature, and might make things worse, anything
00:05:23.800
could happen, right, it's a, it's an interesting world, but don't you have to, first of all, appreciate
00:05:30.500
testing new stuff, I think you've got to give it to them for that, right, I mean, you can
00:05:36.260
criticize the social media platforms for a billion different things, and it would be valid, but you
00:05:42.060
can't criticize them for testing solutions, that part I like, so let's keep that part, now, what could go
00:05:50.000
wrong, plenty, right, that's the problem, what could go wrong with this new feature, so the feature, I
00:05:58.620
don't know the details, but in broad strokes, it allows you to add context to other people's
00:06:05.040
tweets, so if I understand it correctly, you'd be able to say, here's another story that's the
00:06:11.480
counterpoint to that, or some, some background that would make the story look different, now, how's
00:06:17.500
that bad, now, some people are saying, well, you know, that we already have that, it's called
00:06:24.360
comments, you can already leave a comment, but how often do you read the comments on a tweet,
00:06:31.340
I mean, seriously, how often do you dig into the comments of a tweet, I do often, but not as a
00:06:38.380
percentage, as a percentage of the time, I usually just read, read the tweets, probably 80% of the
00:06:44.200
time, now, I see what you're saying, that you, that about, that you often, some of you often read the
00:06:50.800
tweets, so I would say 20% of the time, I dig in, and it depends on the tweets, right, if I think I
00:06:56.220
understand the tweet, and there's nothing to talk about, I'm not going to dig into the comments,
00:07:01.720
and those are the dangerous ones, the dangerous ones are the things, are the ones that I think I
00:07:06.300
know the story by reading the headline, if I'm being honest, half of the news I consume is just
00:07:12.200
the headline, because the rest of the story is unnecessary, right, most of the time, the headline is
00:07:18.780
all you need to know, there's nothing else beyond the headline that has any value at all, usually,
00:07:25.800
now, sometimes you're wrong, sometimes there are, you know, lots of important nuggets in the story,
00:07:30.780
but we were busy people, and I have to decide, when do I, you know, when do I dig into the comments
00:07:39.800
and look for it, and when do I just read the headline and move on, so the practical reality of it
00:07:45.480
is that we read the headlines and move on, now, wouldn't it be nice if instead of having to dig
00:07:51.240
through some comment that could be in a string with hundreds or thousands of comments, wouldn't
00:07:56.740
it be nice if for every story that had a need for context, it was just right there, click this button
00:08:04.560
button to see the other side, or click this button to see the top rated counterpoints, something like
00:08:13.660
that. Now, I do think that there's some way to solve this problem. I'll tell you a way that probably
00:08:20.560
won't work, and I saw Jack Posobiec was tweeting an old tweet of mine, in which you, side by side,
00:08:28.120
you could see how Wikipedia talks about the fine people hoax, and then you can see the transcript,
00:08:34.600
the actual transcript from the event, and you can see how different they are, and I don't know the
00:08:41.760
current situation of the Wikipedia story about the fine people hoax, but I was involved with at least
00:08:50.800
one of the editors who was trying to fix that some time ago, and every time it got fixed, to match the
00:08:57.600
transcript, that's it. Just fixing it to match what the transcript says, editors would re-edit it
00:09:05.900
and turn it back to the fake hoax, to the hoax, and it would happen almost instantly, as if somebody
00:09:13.880
was just sitting on it, waiting to change it back to the hoax. Now, I don't know where it is now,
00:09:19.000
but at one point, it was almost just where I would put it. In other words, it stated that the
00:09:26.520
president said he wasn't talking about the neo-Nazis, etc. So once you say that clearly, that debunks the
00:09:33.940
hoax. So, what happens if this new Twitter feature, this birdwatch, is anything like Wikipedia?
00:09:44.640
It's a problem, right? Because this is a very specific, observable example, where Wikipedia,
00:09:50.900
because of its business model, if you can call it a business, because of its model, the public can
00:09:57.800
distort the news. Now, ideally, they can't distort it forever, because there will be enough people
00:10:04.080
coming in to correct it, that the correction will eventually overcome any errors, and that normally
00:10:10.440
is the way it works. But I think in this narrow realm of politics, the trolls or the people who want
00:10:17.380
to protect the incorrect story are just too strong. There are just too many of them. So this is the one
00:10:24.100
realm in which Wikipedia is difficult to self-correct, because there's too much incentive to keep it
00:10:29.360
incorrect, which wouldn't apply to most of its content, right? But I don't think that birdwatch is heading
00:10:37.320
to the Wikipedia model. The Wikipedia model tries to get you one story that's correct. I don't think Twitter
00:10:46.600
is trying to do that, and it would be a mistake if they did. I think they're trying to show you what
00:10:52.320
people say, if it's a reasonable counterpoint, and it can be expressed that way. So if what Twitter does
00:11:01.740
is surface the points and the counterpoints in the context, maybe they have something. If what
00:11:07.680
they're doing is looking for the one correct narrative, that's worse. Can we agree on that?
00:11:16.280
If it turns into a Wikipedia-like narrative-telling situation where there's one truth that comes out
00:11:22.920
of it, that's worse. If it shows both sides and doesn't try to play favorites, just, hey, here's the argument,
00:11:31.780
make up your own mind, that's better. Because if somebody tweets something, let's say they believe
00:11:39.740
something they saw on CNN, and I put a comment on it in our current model without this new feature,
00:11:45.500
who's going to see it? Right? The people I want to persuade or inform, not likely they're going to
00:11:52.200
see it. But what would happen if I made the best argument against a tweet that I thought was,
00:11:59.120
you know, a wrong narrative or interpretation? Well, if I make a really good counterpoint,
00:12:04.540
the odds of my counterpoint floating up to the top should improve, right? Because it's a good
00:12:11.680
counterpoint. Other people see it. They say, yeah, that's what I would say. He's saying this,
00:12:16.180
you know, the way I would say it. So I have some optimism for this feature, but I'll acknowledge
00:12:23.780
there's a million ways it could go wrong. All right. Somebody is building a face mask that has
00:12:32.560
a COVID test indicator built into the face mask. So I think something would change color based on the
00:12:39.360
droplets coming out of your mouth all day. Eventually, they might build up to the point
00:12:42.920
where it could measure them. And I said to myself, if we can do that, shouldn't we have rapid tests
00:12:51.140
already? If you can build that technology into a mask, you can't just put it in a pack of gum and
00:13:00.040
sell it to me over the counter. And if the problem is that the mask would be, let's say, a lower,
00:13:06.100
lower sensitivity than a proper COVID test, then don't you have a problem with the FDA, right?
00:13:14.240
The whole problem with the rapid tests is that they're lower by design, they're lower sensitivity.
00:13:20.180
And that's the problem. The FDA doesn't want low sensitivity tests out there, even if they would
00:13:27.140
be more useful than high sensitivity tests because you could do them in volume. So I don't think
00:13:35.520
this thing about the mask having the test built into it, I don't think that can work unless rapid tests
00:13:44.400
can work. And I don't see how they're going to get improved right away. Although the Biden
00:13:49.060
administration apparently is doing a better job on approving that stuff. One of the questions that
00:13:57.580
I was asked here is to teach people how to know who to trust in the news.
00:14:05.520
Which is a good question, right? How do you know who to trust? All the pundits, all the experts,
00:14:12.080
all the news people, you know, what rules do you use? And there are lots of them, but I'm going to
00:14:19.060
put one of them out there. Somebody says, trust no one. Trusting no one is a really good, that's a good
00:14:25.500
starting point, right? Trust no one is a good starting point. I agree with that. But there are some,
00:14:33.140
some situations that stand out more than others, all right? You're going to end up probably not
00:14:40.600
trusting, but let's say siding with a side. You're probably going to do that. So you'd like as much
00:14:47.180
knowledge as you could about, you know, who's more credible. Here's a little tip. Don't trust
00:14:53.760
anybody who has a brand consistency problem. Here's what I mean by that. A brand consistency
00:15:04.400
problem is you've, you've built yourself into a kind of voice. You're, you always have a kind of
00:15:11.700
slant on things. You're, you're the person who's known for saying whatever. As soon as you're the
00:15:17.600
person who's known for saying whatever, and you start monetizing that, your credibility goes right
00:15:24.780
out the door. Because you sort of need to stay that person to be the brand that people are coming to.
00:15:32.480
And now what do you do? Because you need to be that person, all right? And I'm going to mention a
00:15:38.860
specific person, but I want to generalize the point, all right? So it's not about a specific person.
00:15:44.940
So you've been watching Alex Berenson, who's probably maybe the most notable or famous,
00:15:53.840
I would say skeptic would be the right word. So when you see him appearing or writing, and he's all
00:16:00.440
over the place with the coronavirus story, I believe he worked at the New York Times. So he's, he's a
00:16:05.680
credible kind of person with a credible resume. And he's been skeptical of a lot of the data science
00:16:12.740
that's coming out of the coronavirus stuff. Now, in the beginning of the pandemic, is it useful
00:16:18.940
to have a skeptic? Yeah, it's really useful. You really do want some strong voices to say,
00:16:27.080
you say that that makes sense scientifically, but where's your data? And then you show the data,
00:16:33.640
and then you still want somebody to say, yeah, but I don't think that data says what you think it's
00:16:38.360
going to say. So a skeptic with credentials, you know, at least journalistic credentials like Alex
00:16:46.160
Berenson, very, very valuable. You want as many of those as you can get. Smart people, right? You
00:16:53.300
don't want dumb skeptics. You want a smart, legitimately professional person who's an actual
00:16:59.540
skeptic. So from that point of view, he's a national treasure, right? I always appreciate skeptics.
00:17:06.060
They're national treasures, especially if they go against the grain and it's going to cost them
00:17:10.700
something professionally. And it probably did. He probably took a hit professionally. But I think
00:17:16.740
he was starting out doubting, and maybe still does, I don't know his exact position on masks and
00:17:21.940
social distancing and lockdowns. Now, is it reasonable to be a skeptic on masks, social distancing,
00:17:30.940
and lockdowns? Yeah. Yeah, it's reasonable. Completely reasonable. Is it right? I don't know.
00:17:40.720
Right? I don't know. Because we don't have data we can trust, which would be the point of a skeptic,
00:17:46.460
right? The whole point of a skeptic is, hey, this data you're selling us, it's not reliable.
00:17:52.320
So when you see somebody like Berenson say, your data is not reliable on masks, social distancing,
00:18:00.980
whatever else, I feel like he's in pretty solid ground most of the time. Like, I think that most
00:18:07.300
of the time that data is not reliable, meaning it's not really nailed down that these facts are
00:18:15.340
telling you what you think they're telling you. But as time goes by, those things which you should
00:18:21.060
be properly skeptical about, you get a little more clarity over time. I believe that the consensus
00:18:28.040
of science, and even maybe skeptics, is that masks surely must make some difference. Not so much
00:18:37.160
protecting you from virus, but from the ones that you might be giving off. But now we have
00:18:45.760
vaccinations. Would you take the same level of skepticism for masks and lockdowns and stuff
00:18:52.740
and take that to vaccinations? You should, because skepticism everywhere is always a valuable asset,
00:19:01.660
right? Even if it's wrong, you want that point and counterpoint. You always want that.
00:19:06.120
So Alex Berenson was tweeting, I think the other day, yesterday, that Israel has not yet shown any
00:19:15.100
effect from their vaccinations, and they seem to be the most complete in getting people vaccinated
00:19:22.460
over 65, at least. And I saw that and I thought, I don't know, is this where you want to put the
00:19:30.440
skepticism? I would have waited a little bit. But almost five minutes after he tweeted that Israel's
00:19:39.080
not showing any difference, Joel Pollack and other people who were also following it said,
00:19:46.520
no, actually, the data is really clear. Here's the graph. Three weeks after the vaccination started,
00:19:52.160
you see the hospitalizations, not every other measure, but just hospitalizations just plummeted.
00:19:59.060
So, who's right? Is Alex Berenson's chart and data that didn't seem to show anything obvious
00:20:10.300
happening there, is that right? Or are the other people who said, no, here's the current information
00:20:15.920
on hospitalizations and their actual stories based on news reports, are they right? I don't know.
00:20:24.040
The problem is, just because you see data in a news story, it doesn't mean it's right anymore.
00:20:31.660
It used to make me think it was probably right, but not anymore. You can't really trust anything
00:20:40.160
anymore. But if I had to bet, I would bet they're working, and I would bet that the graphs showing
00:20:48.840
lower hospitalizations, lower hospitalizations, I would bet that's accurate. I would bet that things
00:20:55.300
are going the right direction. So, to my first question, who should you trust? Alex Berenson has
00:21:04.200
the problem, which is not necessarily his fault, right? This is not a criticism. But once you become
00:21:12.000
the skeptic guy, it's hard to get out of that, right? Once you're the skeptic guy, that's why you get
00:21:19.260
asked to be on the show. It's why a publisher will publish your book. And it would be easy to overdo the
00:21:27.360
skepticism. All right? So, bringing you back to the specific personality, is Alex Berenson a credible
00:21:36.280
person? Yes. Yes. He's a very credible person. But if you take the most credible person in the world
00:21:42.780
and put them in a situation where they've got a brand compatibility issue, that credibility,
00:21:49.580
you have to mentally adjust it, right? So, that would be one tip for knowing who to trust. It doesn't
00:21:55.960
matter how credible or smart or well-informed the person is, if they have a brand issue. And that's
00:22:02.220
what you want to look for. Now, am I suggesting that Alex Berenson would intentionally say something
00:22:09.000
that was wrong for his brand? No. No. I have no reason to believe he would do anything intentionally.
00:22:16.000
I'm just saying that you should not make any assumptions about people's internal thoughts.
00:22:21.580
And if they have a brand issue, factor that in.
00:22:24.200
Here's a dog that's not barking. What is the Biden administration approach to North Korea?
00:22:36.000
Why aren't we hearing anything about that? Did North Korea suddenly become no problem? Because if it is
00:22:43.400
no problem, isn't that Trump? And if it is a problem, what's he doing about it? What's the Biden
00:22:51.880
administration take on North Korea? Wouldn't you like to know? That's going to be a fun one.
00:23:02.060
Assuming the world doesn't blow up, it's going to be really fun to see how Biden handles North Korea,
00:23:07.520
because he doesn't have that same relationship, etc. So, I just wonder why we're not hearing anything
00:23:15.240
about it. I guess Kim Jong-un would have to do something provocative to make that happen.
00:23:20.400
So, we're already seeing that China is, they did some flexing their muscle, did some flyover over
00:23:26.800
Taiwanese airspace. I think they're really going to start flexing on Biden. We'll see what he does.
00:23:36.160
So, Biden did sign some kind of a bi-American legislation, but it only applies to government
00:23:43.140
stuff. And when I heard that, I said to myself, wait, what? Joe Biden had to pass some kind of a
00:23:51.840
law or, it must have been an executive order. He had to, I think it was an executive order. He had to
00:23:58.200
change something to make the government of the United States prefer American products? And I thought,
00:24:06.000
we didn't already do that? I mean, I get why you wouldn't necessarily do it with the public, but the
00:24:12.540
government? I feel as if the government should be buying from American producers if there's any product that
00:24:19.880
meets the need. So, and I also ask myself, Trump didn't do that? Are you telling me that Joe Biden had to do the
00:24:29.880
thing that was Trump's brand, which is bi-American? Why didn't Trump do that? Can we say that that was
00:24:38.220
a plus for Biden? Can we be objective? Oh, by the way, you're watching me model the very thing I was
00:24:47.320
talking about not doing. One of the reasons that I tell you from the start is that I'm left of Bernie,
00:24:54.760
but I liked a lot of what Trump did, is that it confuses you about what my brand is. I do that
00:25:02.540
intentionally. And I do that to make sure I don't get in a brand trap where there's some topics I just
00:25:08.480
can't talk about because nobody would trust me. They're like, ah, you're the guy who always says
00:25:12.860
that. So part of my brand risk is that people who have not followed me closely, they think that I
00:25:22.180
always agree with Trump no matter whatever Trump does. Now, those of you who follow me know that
00:25:26.700
that's not even close. And here's an example. As far as I can tell, just looking at it from, you know,
00:25:34.140
you never know the details, but it looks to me like this was a Biden success to require that our
00:25:41.660
government only buys American. That looks like a Biden success. And if Trump had done it, I would
00:25:47.380
say that that's a Trump success. And it looks like it was something Trump could have done
00:25:52.740
and didn't do. Now, if you dug into this story, you might find out that there's nothing there.
00:25:59.840
It might be all smoke and mirrors, which might be why Trump didn't do it. It could be that we'd be
00:26:06.420
better off buying, let's say, a French generator if no American makes that product. It could be that we
00:26:16.780
already buy American whenever it's an option. Don't you think? If you're the procurement person for the
00:26:25.540
government, no matter what part of the government you're in, and you have a choice of the Lithuanian
00:26:31.220
product or the American product, and they both do the same thing for about the same price, don't you
00:26:37.560
think you were going to buy the American product anyway? So I don't know if it makes any difference.
00:26:41.760
It may be entirely just for show. But let me be consistent. If Trump had done this, and even if
00:26:51.020
it were just for show, I would still say it's the right thing to do. Because it's part of the, let's
00:26:57.980
say, how you change minds about what is right and smart. So even if it didn't make any practical
00:27:05.800
difference to have the government, you know, required to buy American stuff, because they probably were
00:27:11.840
pretty close to doing that anyway, it sends us a message. And it's a good one. You know, that this
00:27:18.280
is the direction we're going. Everywhere we can find an opportunity to buy American, we're going to do
00:27:23.740
it even if it's a small opportunity. So that's a Biden success, in my opinion. I'm going to give him
00:27:31.300
that one. CNN, being more entertainingly ridiculous than ever, had a chyron, which is the name for the
00:27:41.860
little message that appears at the bottom of the screen. It's called a chyron, C-H-Y-R-O-N, in case you
00:27:47.520
wondered. And so on CNN's Reliable Sources, you know that story, the chyron was below a picture of
00:27:58.280
Biden's spokesperson, Jen Psaki. And it said that Psaki promises to share accurate information,
00:28:10.080
This is on, so CNN, their coverage, their critical coverage of the Biden presidency is that Biden's
00:28:21.840
spokesperson promises to share accurate information, how refreshing. Oh, my God. Glenn Greenwald came in
00:28:32.100
to dunk on them in a tweet. And Greenwald says, I once again humbly submit that this would be a bridge
00:28:39.480
too far, even for North Korean state television, which is usually a bit more subtle and discerning than
00:28:50.080
The CNN obviously wants access to government people because they can't report. The worst thing would be to be
00:28:58.680
CNN and have no access to interviews because they don't like you. So apparently they're in the business of
00:29:08.140
getting liked by the Biden administration so they have access. But it's actually, it's literally funny
00:29:14.260
to watch how fawning they are. Now somebody's saying it's like Fox to Trump, and you're not wrong.
00:29:23.340
So I'm not going to defend, I'm not going to defend anybody else on this. But this is actually pretty
00:29:28.820
funny. I told you yesterday that if you saw Vice President Harris getting a portfolio, like a special
00:29:39.880
job for a vice president, like Al Gore had a special job fixing the government's processes, and Mike Pence
00:29:48.120
has a special job with a, or had with a coronavirus task force. So if you see a vice president get a
00:29:54.340
special portfolio, that would be an indication that that person is going to stay a vice president
00:30:00.100
for a while. But I told you that if you see that Harris does not get a portfolio, it might mean that
00:30:07.380
they're grooming her to be a step in fairly soon. And then the news within hours of me saying that,
00:30:17.620
then I saw an article, and I don't know, maybe the article came out even before I said that,
00:30:22.240
but I hadn't seen it. It said, according to the New York Times, Harris has not been assigned a specific
00:30:29.180
portfolio. The exact thing I said, she's not been assigned a specific portfolio as of now. She will serve as,
00:30:38.320
and listen to this phrasing from the New York Times, a governing partner to Biden on his top priorities.
00:30:45.480
She's going to be a co-president. She's going to be a governing partner. Now, that's not exactly a
00:30:53.040
co-president, but feels like it. Doesn't have, don't you feel that vibe? Now, I don't expect my
00:31:02.940
predictions to usually be that accurate that quickly. And again, I don't know if this information was out
00:31:11.000
there before I even made that prediction, which would make it not a prediction. But that's what
00:31:17.840
I was expecting. So I expected that she would not get a portfolio. And I do think that that indicates
00:31:26.660
they're trying to, the problem with giving the vice president a portfolio is that it diminishes them.
00:31:33.440
Does that make sense? If you get a portfolio, it's sort of like, oh, vice president, a little
00:31:40.380
pat on the head. Oh, what a cute vice president. You could never be president, but we'll give you a
00:31:45.920
project. Here's a little project. Yeah. Yeah. You little vice president. That's what it feels like
00:31:52.840
when you get a portfolio. But when you become, when you don't get one, it makes you look like you're a
00:31:59.660
governing partner. Right? Yeah. So it clearly is, she's being positioned to take over. Now that
00:32:06.480
doesn't mean they have a specific date to do it. I've heard people suggest they would do it after
00:32:11.820
the midterms, which would not surprise me. Israel is saying that if the United States drops the
00:32:21.740
sanctions with Iran and gets back into some kind of a Iranian nuclear deal, that Israel says it will
00:32:29.480
attack Iran. Now that's not an official pronouncement. I guess this is just reports from people who are
00:32:38.060
part of the government. So it's not an official government statement. But apparently they're saying
00:32:43.340
it fairly directly. Now when they say attack, they don't necessarily mean a full war. They mean attack their
00:32:51.240
nuclear facilities. And when Israel says, we will attack, that doesn't mean maybe. Right? Is there
00:33:02.980
ever been a case where Israel said under these conditions, we will attack? And then they don't?
00:33:11.320
Has that ever happened in the history of Israel? I don't know. But I would certainly trust them if
00:33:18.320
they said we're going to attack. So what does Biden do? Biden would guarantee war, or at least
00:33:27.060
something that looks a little like a war, between Israel and Iran based on the stated policy that he's
00:33:34.440
pursuing. And Israel is saying, it's not maybe. It's not maybe military action. It's military action.
00:33:43.660
So that's quite a pressure on Joe Biden. How will he manage this, being the statesman that he is?
00:33:51.560
So keep an eye on that. Here's a little crack in the Democratic front. So there's a reporter for CBS,
00:34:03.400
a White House reporter, named Katherine Watson. Now it's important to the story that she works for CBS,
00:34:10.140
because you think of CBS as sort of left-leaning. And here's what she says in a tweet. She says,
00:34:17.020
teachers unions, I'm sorry, she said, in her tweet, she said, if Biden is really serious about getting
00:34:23.020
kids back to school within 100 days, he's going to have to clash with teachers unions at some point.
00:34:30.140
So that's CBS saying that. That if Biden wants to get kids back to school, he's going to have to go up
00:34:37.840
against the teachers unions. Interesting, right? Because the teachers unions are really, really
00:34:44.080
powerful. They really support the Democrats. And Biden is completely beholden to them. But if he wants
00:34:51.760
to keep the country intact, he has to destroy them, or at least push them aside temporarily.
00:34:59.440
Is he the right president to do that? Nope, he's not. He's exactly the wrong president to do that.
00:35:08.240
I've told you a number of times, there's no such thing as a good president or a bad president.
00:35:13.060
Now, that's an exaggeration. Of course, you could have one that's bad. But in general,
00:35:17.100
you have presidents that either fit a situation or don't. I thought that Trump fit the North Korean
00:35:25.100
situation. He fit the peace in the Middle East situation. He fit the ISIS situation. He fit the
00:35:31.100
China situation. There's a whole bunch of stuff that Trump is a perfect fit for. Healthcare? Maybe
00:35:38.000
not so much, right? Not the right fit. Did some good things in terms of reducing regulations,
00:35:43.020
and that cannot be ignored. But it's the fit that matters. Who would have been a better fit
00:35:50.440
to take on the teachers unions? Trump, who did not get support from them, or Biden, who does get
00:36:00.020
support from them, and it's really, really important? The answer is Trump. Trump, for this situation,
00:36:06.820
getting kids back to school, is unambiguously the better president. Unfortunately, he's not the
00:36:12.760
president. So what does Biden do? Does he let the teachers unions continue with their being the
00:36:20.000
source of all systemic racism, which they are? And the argument there is that by preventing school
00:36:26.140
choice, they lock every poor community into remaining a poor community, because those kids can't go to a
00:36:33.980
better school. There's just no choice. They have one bad school, and that's what you got. So that,
00:36:40.740
of course, makes systemic racism continue on in ways that it should not. If everybody had a good job
00:36:48.240
because of a good education, you'd have a lot less discrimination, right? But now they're actually
00:36:56.100
hurting children, because we know children are being damaged by being kept out of the social school
00:37:02.640
situation. They're not learning as much. They're not socializing right. They're getting damaged. It's
00:37:07.580
real. It's important. But likewise, the economy really depends on getting the kids back to school,
00:37:15.420
because you've got two parents that can't work at the same time, necessarily, if kids are there.
00:37:21.520
So the teachers unions have become the biggest problem in the country, and we have a president who's
00:37:27.580
the only one who can't do anything about it. That's a bad, bad situation. He can't even talk
00:37:33.160
about it right. Can't even talk about it. That's a problem. So keep an eye on that.
00:37:44.200
On the plus side, if you're following Corey DeAngelis on Twitter, you see lots of reports,
00:37:50.980
and you should, by the way, you should follow him, Corey DeAngelis. You'll see him in my Twitter
00:37:55.360
feed if you're looking for him. He reports on various states and localities looking into funding
00:38:04.660
students directly, and apparently there's a lot of movement in that direction. Now, I don't know
00:38:10.380
exactly how well that's going to work, but anything that looks like it's breaking the monopoly that the
00:38:17.000
teachers unions have is worth looking at. It's worth looking at. So directly funding students instead
00:38:24.460
of funding the school gives the students who are directly funded at least the option to take their
00:38:30.780
education somewhere else. And then maybe the free market can fix things in a way the teachers unions
00:38:39.500
I got a question for you. Is it too late to impeach George Washington over slavery?
00:38:47.020
Because I don't know about you, but I am opposed to slavery. Totally opposed. Not even any wiggle room.
00:38:57.480
I can't speak for the rest of you, but just for me, no slavery. Totally against it. And George
00:39:05.940
Washington, having been a slave owner, I don't think we can let that slide. Can we? Now, there was a time
00:39:14.140
when I thought, well, what can you do about it? He's dead. It was hundreds of years ago. Yeah, and
00:39:19.580
Thomas Jefferson, that asshole, he's got to be impeached. He's got to be impeached. But now that I know
00:39:26.320
that you can impeach a president after their round of office, I don't see any reason you can't impeach them
00:39:32.200
when they're dead. Can you? I'm not aware of anything in our Constitution that would prevent
00:39:39.980
Congress from impeaching a dead president like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.
00:39:45.420
And they did some bad stuff. Slave owners, that's about as bad as it gets, right? Short of a Holocaust,
00:39:53.460
owning slaves has got to be number two on the list of bad stuff you can do. So I think we need to
00:40:00.440
stop doing the business of the country. By the way, Joe Biden has acknowledged that impeaching Trump
00:40:10.160
will damage the effectiveness of the Congress. So that while the impeachment of Trump is going on,
00:40:17.480
the impeachment trial, he acknowledges that they won't be able to do the work of the country
00:40:22.820
as efficiently. But he's okay with that. Because he says it's really, really important to impeach
00:40:31.900
Trump. It's very important because reasons. It's very important to impeach Trump because
00:40:39.000
of that he's going to run for office again. I would think they would be very, very happy to
00:40:48.980
have him run for office again. I would think that Trump plus four years of age,
00:40:56.780
I think they would be happy to have him run for office because it would look like President Harris
00:41:04.040
for sure. But I think the real reason they say they want to do it is not that. If you ask the
00:41:13.220
Democrats, why are you doing it? They won't say, well, we want to keep him out of office in the future
00:41:18.000
because that would sound petty and also sound like not doing their job. It would sound political.
00:41:23.780
So instead they say things like, it's very important to send a message. Well, if it's important
00:41:31.140
to send a message, let's send a message to all of those past presidents who've had some issues we
00:41:36.480
don't like. I feel as if most of our presidents could be impeached. Do you know what JFK did in the
00:41:43.980
White House? He defiled the White House a little bit, just a little bit. Let's just say he was doing
00:41:52.420
a lot of defiling in that White House. So impeach him for that too. Impeach them all.
00:41:59.020
I've told you, of course, that I'm on another platform called Locals, L-O-C-A-L-S. You can find
00:42:11.620
them, just go to onlocals.com. And apparently it's just taken off. Not apparently, it's taken off like
00:42:22.840
crazy. So a lot of people who are looking for some kind of platform where the censorship is not going
00:42:29.500
to be political are going there. And I'm on there and you can subscribe to me. And because it's a
00:42:37.600
subscription service, I don't get, I just don't get trolls. So I have a whole other experience on
00:42:45.600
Locals in which everybody who's there wants to be there. They're paying, they're literally paying
00:42:50.900
a subscription fee to be there. Seven bucks a month or more if they want to message me. And
00:42:56.320
when people pay to be somewhere, they act quite polite. They're happy to be there. So I have this
00:43:03.980
whole other experience where the people are posting like interesting things because they came there,
00:43:10.140
you know, because of some, some intersection with my points of view. And so the things they post
00:43:16.500
tend to be extra interesting. And apparently the locals is taking off. Traffic wise, it's just,
00:43:24.060
it's on a nice growth right now. Full disclosure, I have a small amount of stock in locals. Just so
00:43:32.280
you know that. Small amount, not enough to change too much in my life. All right. According to the IEEE
00:43:40.500
spectrum, the only way we're going to be successful in space and getting to Mars in particular quick
00:43:48.240
enough is if we use nuclear engines in our rockets. Now, have I told you before that our domestic
00:43:56.060
energy policy needs to have a robust nuclear energy component so that we're developing the right kind
00:44:05.360
of skills to transfer to space. Because space is going to be nuclear, right? Probably they won't
00:44:13.160
use nuclear engines to take off. That might stay similar to how it is now. But once you get into
00:44:19.400
space, you're going to need some, some serious energy, right? To stay up there for a while, to go to Mars
00:44:25.420
and back, that sort of thing. You're going to need a lot of energy. And so the idea is nuclear thermal
00:44:31.140
propulsion. So it uses the nuclear reaction to heat liquid to some god-awfully high number, which causes
00:44:40.320
the propellant to expand and shoots out the nozzles and whatever. So if you use nuclear energy in rockets,
00:44:47.520
once they get to space, not only could you get to Mars, is it two years, they think, maybe? It's twice as fast.
00:44:56.740
But when you get there, you've got a nuclear energy source. So not only does the nuclear engine allow
00:45:05.840
you to travel, but should you try to colonize something, you'd have a nuclear energy source.
00:45:12.040
Just plug in your devices to your spaceship, I guess. All right. So that's good. And again,
00:45:21.420
I point that out, because if the United States doesn't dominate or at least be a major presence
00:45:29.380
in space, we don't have a future. All right. Whoever owns space, that's who is going to control
00:45:36.780
the future. That's it. So, and without nuclear, that doesn't happen. And without a robust civilian
00:45:44.680
nuclear program, you're not going to have the talent to do it in space. So we have to pursue that.
00:45:51.420
Now, what would happen if we tried to find unity in this country? What would that look
00:45:59.740
like? What would it look like if we tried to have unity? Well, Joe Biden's call for unity
00:46:10.880
involves impeaching Trump. So he just said again that he wants to do it even though it's bad
00:46:18.000
for the country. Revenge? I don't know. So is that good for unity? Is impeaching Trump
00:46:25.120
at the expense of the business of the country for unity? That's not much unity. I was watching
00:46:32.180
Alan Dershowitz's podcast, which is really good, called the Dershow, one word, as in the
00:46:39.200
first part of Dershowitz's name, Dershow. And he had asked people for ideas and suggestions
00:46:45.820
on how to build unity with the political left and right. And I tweeted yesterday a caller
00:46:54.080
who called in to suggest that maybe the best way to get unity would be for Joe Biden to correct and
00:47:01.960
apologize, the fine people hoax. Now, I was a little bit concerned that Alan Dershowitz would
00:47:11.260
say, that's no hoax. That's a real thing, as most Democrats would say, right? Now, remember,
00:47:19.020
Alan Dershowitz identifies Democrat. He voted for Hillary Clinton, has never wavered. He's a Democrat
00:47:26.200
to the core. And as a Democrat, he said unambiguously that the fine people hoax is a hoax and went
00:47:37.380
through the reasoning and said it as clearly as you could possibly say it. And I felt really good
00:47:44.700
about it. Because I've told you before that I'm never confident in my opinion until I hear Dershowitz
00:47:50.120
agree with it. Or I hear him first and then I just agree with him because it's easier than,
00:47:55.120
it's easier than coming up with my own opinions because his are better than mine. So I just wait
00:48:00.680
until Dershowitz says something. I go, what did he say? Okay, that's my opinion now. Now, I do think
00:48:06.280
about it a little bit, but he's so damn logical that once he says his opinion, I just look at it and
00:48:13.040
go, ah, who else has an opinion that's going to top that? I don't think so. So, I feel as if
00:48:22.340
we should pick a thing and push it forever. And I think the thing, we meaning anybody who wants
00:48:30.440
Biden to pursue unity, I think we should push the fine people hoax as the thing that needs to be
00:48:36.940
corrected. It's the thing in my life that most needs to be corrected. I need the people on the left
00:48:45.280
to know they were lied to about that in particular because it was so important. They need to understand
00:48:52.640
they were lied to about that. That's a big change. There's nothing else unity-wise that I can think of,
00:49:00.380
nothing, that would come close to that in terms of making the people on the right say, okay, okay,
00:49:08.640
that sounds like unity, right? Stop calling us racist. That would be a start. Yeah, there's the
00:49:15.940
other hoaxes too, the bleach drinking hoax, et cetera. Brendan Straka apparently has been picked
00:49:25.840
up by the FBI. I don't know if he's arrested per se, but he's in some trouble for being part of the,
00:49:31.480
allegedly part of the Capitol insurrection. And by being part of it, the reports, which you should
00:49:38.620
not treat as credible yet, you know, is that he may have been inside the Capitol and may or may not
00:49:46.300
have been saying things, inciting other people to go inside. I have a real problem with somebody like
00:49:55.100
him getting swept up in any legal problems. On one hand, I totally oppose the people who entered the
00:50:04.620
Capitol and caused any damage and threatened our government, et cetera. The legal system has to do
00:50:10.640
what the legal system needs to do. If laws were broken, it has to be addressed. I guess there's
00:50:17.240
just no way around that. Even if you have some empathy for the people who did it, our system just
00:50:24.720
doesn't let you commit crimes and get away with it. Unfortunately, you just can't do that.
00:50:31.980
Or fortunately, you just can't do that. And, but the problem is, I do think there is something about
00:50:38.680
the idea of being swept up in something. If everybody is doing something, it doesn't look so wrong
00:50:46.200
if you're in the crowd. And somehow that has to matter, right? You can't let people get away with
00:50:53.320
crimes, but it has to matter how you got there. And I think the legal system does take that into
00:51:00.460
consideration, at least for sentencing. So I'd hate to see somebody like Brandon Stratka get any kind of
00:51:06.820
a, you know, a permanent problem in his life from the legal system for what? I doubt he ever had any
00:51:13.760
violent, anything. Probably thought he was doing a free speech thing. Didn't think he was getting
00:51:20.480
anybody with a club. So he was just there for free speech. I just have a real problem if he gets hit
00:51:27.280
hard by the legal system. So that's just a shout out to the legal system. Be smart about this, right?
00:51:34.380
You got to be smart about this. And this would be sort of a, that's sort of a dividing line. Like he's an
00:51:40.680
edge case where what you do with Brendan's, with Brandon Stratka and other people who are in the
00:51:47.340
same situation. I feel like how you treat that is going to make a big difference, especially to unity.
00:51:56.640
So Joe Biden has prioritized racial inequality as one of his top things to battle. And here's my take
00:52:06.760
on that. Of course, racial, uh, racial equality is something I think we all want, don't we? Is there
00:52:15.160
anybody here who doesn't want racial equality? So as a concept, of course, we all want that. Uh, if
00:52:22.880
you're, if you're a good person, you want that. But my problem with it is it's the easiest con
00:52:28.820
because talking about it does the least. And it might even be, you know, in some cases might be
00:52:36.160
counterproductive. And so making it a priority, but not doing anything about it, it just feels like
00:52:43.680
a con. Compare that to what Trump did. He didn't talk about it, but he did things about it. You know,
00:52:50.900
he did prison reform. He worked on the economy, which is good for everybody. Uh, as I said earlier,
00:52:57.280
he didn't seem to be a, uh, a supporter of the teachers unions, which are the biggest cause of
00:53:03.720
racial inequality in the long run. Uh, so Trump was all action. If, you know, he funded a permanent,
00:53:12.740
not permanently, or he did a lot of funding for the historically black colleges. He, uh, did
00:53:18.240
opportunity zones with Tim Scott. Every part of that was action directly, directly related to making
00:53:27.080
the world a more equal place racially, et cetera, all action. But what exactly is Joe Biden going to do
00:53:34.720
having made it a priority? I feel like that's about talking. I feel like it's a con that it's a way to
00:53:44.020
make people think something is happening, but what's happening is talking. And I feel bad, honestly,
00:53:52.460
for black voters who thought they were getting more than that. I don't know that they're getting more
00:53:58.020
than that. We'll see, but it looks like that's all they're getting. Speaking of that, um, speaking of
00:54:06.800
that priority, here's a scariest thing that you'll see lately in the California high schools,
00:54:14.020
they're going to embrace, uh, the CRT or critical, uh, no, actually critical ethnic studies. So I guess
00:54:22.720
instead of critical race theory is critical ethnic studies. And within that studies, apparently,
00:54:32.620
reportedly, um, they talk about who has a privileged position in society. And what would be the point
00:54:42.400
of saying that some group has a privileged place in society? What would be the point of that? Now,
00:54:49.080
some of it is education and context, et cetera, but wouldn't the express point be to discriminate
00:54:54.900
against that group? Isn't that the point? Now, when I say discriminate, if you're discriminating against
00:55:01.860
the group that's in power, well, that doesn't feel so bad, does it? You're discriminating against the
00:55:08.000
strong. What would be bad would be discriminating against the weak as a general concept, right?
00:55:15.220
You know, without getting into the details, generally speaking, doing something against the strong,
00:55:21.380
not so bad. Doing something against the weak, very, very bad, right? As a general rule. Now,
00:55:28.600
even better, don't do bad things to anybody. Can't we agree on that? Best situation? Don't do bad
00:55:36.900
things to anybody. Um, but I think the critical ethnic studies and critical race theory essentially
00:55:46.400
put, uh, white people as a privileged class, which is very close to putting a target on their back.
00:55:58.600
Hear what I'm saying? If you, if you mark somebody as the privileged people, you have marked them as
00:56:04.580
the ones who should have less in the future. They're targeted. Now, I don't mean targeted for
00:56:09.960
violence. I'm not talking about that. I'm about targeted for maybe you should have a little less
00:56:16.000
of this privileged thing in the future. Maybe other people should have more, but the only way you get
00:56:21.820
there is you have less. So in the sense that it's the group targeted to have less relative to the
00:56:29.840
other people, they're targeted. Is that a fair statement? That they would be targeted to have less
00:56:37.820
in the future compared to other people to make things more fair as the theory goes. But here's where
00:56:44.560
they made a small little mistake, something that maybe they could have seen coming. And it goes like
00:56:55.580
this. They decided to throw Jews into the category of privileged people. Do I need to finish the sentence?
00:57:06.020
Critical ethnic studies in California high schools are going to call out Jews as targeted for
00:57:17.240
privilege, meaning that they should have less in the future relative to other people.
00:57:23.200
Let me, there are some things which defy words. So if you're only listening to this on the podcast,
00:57:34.920
I'm going to have to do this with a physical expression that you won't be able to hear. So when you
00:57:41.220
don't hear me for a moment, it's because I'm doing something hilarious and spot on to the people who are
00:57:47.780
watching it. And it goes like this. That's it. What words could possibly express how bad this is,
00:58:10.000
right? As a direction you're going anyway, right? Unbelievable. Now, I get the point that there
00:58:19.920
are certain groups who are economically doing better than others, right? And I'm guessing that
00:58:24.340
that's where they're coming from. But I think it has more to do with they've just decided, let's throw
00:58:29.420
the Jewish Americans in with everybody else who's white, call them all privileged, ba-ba-boom,
00:58:37.500
and we're done. I don't feel like that's a good path. I feel like that's not going to work out.
00:58:46.280
So there's a little bit of a unity that needs some improving, wouldn't you say? I think we can
00:58:53.400
improve our unity on this question a little bit, a little bit. So now I've told you that the obvious
00:59:00.800
direction for wokeness is self-destruction. Because the whole wokeness thing, when you start breaking
00:59:08.280
people into categories, you can't stop. There's no logical place to stop once you start categorizing
00:59:14.760
people, which is why you don't want to do it, right? Either treat everybody the same, or you categorize
00:59:21.600
until you get this kind of problem. So this was the most predictable thing that could have possibly
00:59:26.360
happened. Totally predictable. So that's, we hope that there'll be some force that pushes
00:59:35.260
back on that. All right. I think I had one other point I was going to say, which is, remind
00:59:44.640
me, did I talk about Aaron Rupar and Vox and the bleach drinking hoax? The amazing thing about
00:59:54.180
this hoax, I think I did talk about it, is that I think people don't understand how communication
01:00:03.740
works, which is interesting for someone who's a professional writer, that he doesn't understand
01:00:09.620
how communication works. Let me explain to you how communication works. It's a very basic
01:00:16.960
concept, and apparently some people don't get this. It goes like this. You have to assume
01:00:22.840
what a speaker is thinking in order to understand what they're saying. So you have to consider
01:00:30.360
the source. So if your best friend mocks you, you say, ah, that's my best friend. In my best
01:00:38.360
friend's mind, they're not being mean to me. They're just having fun. So who says it and what
01:00:43.980
they're thinking completely determines how you accept it, right? So let me give you an example.
01:00:51.040
Let's say I said to you, hey, I'd like to invite you over to my house for dinner. How would you
01:00:59.280
interpret that? If somebody said, I'd like you to come over for dinner tonight, what would
01:01:05.320
be the logical assumption about what the person who said that was thinking? You'd probably say
01:01:12.120
to yourself, well, I think that what they're thinking is that they would like to entertain,
01:01:16.780
and they will make a meal, and they will serve that meal, and I will sit at the table with them,
01:01:22.560
and we'll eat that meal. But that's not said, right? That's all just assumed. In your head,
01:01:28.980
you're filling in all the blanks. Stop getting ahead of me in the comments, you damn smart people.
01:01:35.900
My clever point was just coming up, and you beat me to it in the comments. Would you ever assume that
01:01:42.780
if they said, I'd like you to come over for dinner, that their real intention was to eat you and that
01:01:49.000
they are cannibals? And if not, why not? Why would you not make the assumption that they're cannibals?
01:01:58.060
Because the words fit both meanings, right? How do you not assume they're cannibals? What evidence do
01:02:05.440
you have that they're not cannibals? And the answer is, because nobody does that. Nobody. Nobody invites
01:02:15.820
you to their house to eat you. Now, I'm not saying it's never been done. Jeffrey Dahmer, you know,
01:02:24.140
got close to that. I don't think he used those words. But you have to make an assumption that the
01:02:29.820
person speaking is not an absolute, crazy, insane monster, unless, obviously, they are.
01:02:39.300
So, when Aaron Rupar was, when I was questioning him and saying there's nothing about drinking bleach
01:02:46.920
in President Trump's statements when that event happened, he points me to the place where he says
01:02:54.440
he sees it. And I think, how can you see the thing that isn't there? And so I read the words,
01:03:02.740
and he says, Rupar says, quote, in a tweet back to me, he was clearly talking about household
01:03:09.440
cleaning products when he refers to disinfectant. Now, if you read the words exactly the way Aaron
01:03:18.920
Rupar did, could you interpret it to mean household cleaning products? And the answer is yes. Yes, you
01:03:28.020
could. You could interpret the exact words, and specifically the word disinfectant, you could
01:03:35.680
interpret that to mean bleach, right? But should you? Is it completely reasonable to think that the
01:03:47.540
president of the United States, someone who had been, you know, handling the office fine, seems to operate
01:03:53.420
in public, went to college, is an actual operating adult in the real world, is it reasonable to think
01:04:02.060
that he was suggesting putting household disinfectants directly into your body? In what world do you make that
01:04:15.340
assumption that the word disinfectant, especially when it's in the context of talking about light,
01:04:22.700
it's light, light, light, light, light, disinfectant, light, light, light as a disinfectant, disinfectant,
01:04:29.800
light, light, light as a disinfectant, disinfectant. What logical reason would you pick that word
01:04:37.820
disinfectant, which is used, you know, a light is a disinfectant, why would you just pick a word end of a
01:04:44.460
sentence to say, all those other times before and after it, he was talking about light, because he
01:04:49.740
used the words specifically, but this one time, this one time right in the middle, when he used the word
01:04:55.980
disinfectant, that was the time he meant, let's put some bleach into your body. That's why Aaron Rupar
01:05:04.960
assumed the president was thinking. He made the assumption that the president of the United States
01:05:11.340
quite literally would stand in public and suggest ingesting bleach. Why would anybody be that dumb?
01:05:22.140
And I'm not talking about Trump. How could you be so dumb that you think that the president would
01:05:32.160
say that, that that's even possible? If you were making a list of all the things that could have
01:05:37.620
happened, would that even be on the list? Because it's just like somebody inviting you over for
01:05:43.680
dinner. You don't assume they mean cannibalism. Ever. Ever. It's never the right assumption.
01:05:52.760
But a lot of people did, just like Aaron Rupar did. He's not alone, right? There are tens of millions
01:05:58.340
of people who made that same assumption. Why? Because the fake news had drawn such a caricature
01:06:05.860
of Trump that that seemed possible. In other words, the fake news was so thoroughly convincing
01:06:15.700
that if President Trump had invited Aaron Rupar over for dinner, Aaron Rupar could reasonably assume
01:06:25.740
it was meant to eat him, because that's how bad Trump is. That's the world we live in, that somebody
01:06:35.340
would assume that that was even something that the president would say out of his mouth, and that
01:06:41.260
it's even possible that that could have happened. You got to assume that wasn't possible if you're
01:06:46.860
going to understand how language works, right? Language doesn't work if you make the dumbest assumption
01:06:53.900
about what the person is thinking. It never works. Nothing would make sense if you made the dumbest
01:06:59.340
assumption about what somebody is thinking. Let me do that with Joe Biden. Joe Biden, his highest
01:07:09.980
priority is getting rid of racial inequality. Therefore, he wants to kill all the white people.
01:07:16.700
Why would I assume that? Wouldn't that be stupid? Does anybody think that Joe Biden wants to kill all
01:07:24.380
white people? Well, it's right there in what he said. He wants racial equality. How else are you
01:07:31.420
going to get it? Boom, boom, boom. Logical. So watching Democrats not know, especially a professional
01:07:38.860
writer. I mean, Aaron Rupar is a professional writer at a pretty big publication, Vox. He knows how
01:07:47.180
language works. He knows how talking works. He knows how communication works. He's literally a high-end
01:07:54.220
professional. And even he thought that Trump maybe suggested drinking bleach. That's how bad the fake
01:08:04.780
news is. I mean, that's bad. That's as bad as you can get. All right. Anything else we need to cover?
01:08:13.020
I don't think so. Somebody says it's intentional, but you can't rule that out. But honestly, I don't get
01:08:19.420
that vibe. Because we had some back and forth. And he did not defend himself like somebody who knew he was
01:08:29.180
wrong. He defended himself exactly like somebody who thought he was right. Now, I can't read his mind.
01:08:38.140
So if you're going to say to yourself, but you don't know, he might have been acting. Yeah, I guess that's
01:08:44.220
possible. I'm just giving you my best judgment is that it looked genuine. DDS is real.
01:08:53.660
Why did he say he was being sarcastic? Oh, why did Trump say he was being sarcastic?
01:09:01.900
Again, we can't read his mind. But my guess is that he got so much heat for that, he just wanted it to
01:09:08.300
go away. So he just said, I was just playing around and being sarcastic. I think that's the best
01:09:14.460
explanation. But there's no chance that he sarcastically suggested drinking bleach.
01:09:20.860
There's no chance that he sarcastically asked about injecting household disinfectants into a body.
01:09:30.220
He did not sarcastically say that. But he did say that he was being sarcastic. And we know that he
01:09:36.780
sometimes, he has a history of trying to make an issue just go away. So I think he just tried to make
01:09:42.540
it go away. What is up with Newsom? Well, it looks like the number of signatures for the recall is
01:09:52.780
getting up there. And somebody smart pointed out, I forget who it was, so I can't give you credit,
01:09:57.740
that if Newsom demands that the signatures be audited. The idea of auditing elections is going to look
01:10:09.740
good. All right. I think that's all I got for now. And I'm going to go enjoy the day and I will talk to you