Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 04, 2021


Episode 1272 Scott Adams： The News is Ridiculous so Let's See What Trouble I Can Cause


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 6 minutes

Words per Minute

143.29616

Word Count

9,528

Sentence Count

714

Misogynist Sentences

23

Hate Speech Sentences

34


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody. Come on in here. Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
00:00:11.540 Best time of the day. Yeah, every single time. And this will be no exception because I know
00:00:17.940 you're all going to be prepared. Prepared? What do you mean by prepared? Well, I mean,
00:00:22.980 do you have a cup or a mug or a glass? How about a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen
00:00:27.900 jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
00:00:34.400 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that
00:00:37.800 makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And if you haven't tried it, oh, I feel
00:00:43.520 sorry for you because it's awesome. And it's going to happen right now. Go.
00:00:47.960 Yeah. That was 100% satisfying. 100%. 100%. Well, so you may have noticed that there's no news
00:01:07.580 anymore. Do you remember when I used to get on here and talk about the news? And then the news
00:01:15.580 stopped. There just wasn't any more news. Because the news has always been fake.
00:01:21.820 Meaning that the news organizations, they're the ones who decide what is news. And I guess they've
00:01:28.020 decided that we're not going to have any for a while. We'll just not have any news. Now, of course,
00:01:34.700 there are still stories, but they don't feel important or newslike. And it feels like the entire
00:01:43.100 Biden administration is becoming sort of opaque. I know they're doing stuff. But I don't know what.
00:01:52.380 And when I find out what they're doing, I don't know what context it fits into. Can't tell if it's
00:02:00.000 good or bad. It's just all sort of very non-Trump boring. But we'll make it interesting. Here's how.
00:02:08.640 Number one, you have to tie every story to Trump. Otherwise, what's the point of even talking?
00:02:16.680 Because Trump brings the interesting part. And apparently nothing else does. Sure, AOC can do
00:02:24.800 her little thing. But she's just sort of female Trump light, if you think about it. So Trump light,
00:02:32.360 there's no substitute for the real Trump. And so I'm going to work him into a story,
00:02:37.520 forcing it in there. I'm going to force it in there. All right, you ready? This doesn't even
00:02:43.380 have to be about Trump, but I'm going to make it about him, damn it, to make this story a little
00:02:47.980 more interesting. It goes like this. You may have noticed that we no longer have in this country
00:02:55.860 anything like a news industry. It's become fake news. It's become, you know, biased left
00:03:04.200 and right. And that has opened up a gigantic lane right down the middle that's completely
00:03:11.620 available. What is that lane? The lane is, and I've talked about this should have been done
00:03:20.100 during the Trump administration. There is no show that lets people who know what they're talking
00:03:26.660 about on a given topic debate each other with the right format so that you as a viewer could learn
00:03:35.280 something. That doesn't exist. Instead, we have the, you know, one minute pundit yakking each other.
00:03:42.180 They say they're talking points and you don't learn anything. But what if you had an actual half hour
00:03:47.300 show, let's just say it was hosted by ex-president Trump, would you, would, would you watch it? I
00:03:56.180 don't even have to tell you what the show is, right? As soon as I, as soon as I tell you Trump is the
00:04:01.740 host of the show, well, you're going to turn it on, right? You're, you're going to at least sample it
00:04:07.760 because he's the host of the show. You don't need to know what the show is about. You're already
00:04:13.460 going to watch it. All right. But here's what the show could be about. A half hour hosted conversation
00:04:22.420 between two sides who maybe have some experts with them so they, you know, can refer to get the right
00:04:29.380 information if they need it. And they'll just have a conversation in which the ex-president of the
00:04:35.500 United States calls each side on bullshit. And that's it. That's the show. So it's two experts
00:04:43.580 arguing different sides. And then when one expert says something ridiculous, ex-president Trump says,
00:04:50.340 ah, that's ridiculous. Try again. And it doesn't matter which side was being ridiculous. He could call
00:04:57.320 out his own side for not making a good argument. If he thinks there is a good argument, he could call
00:05:03.580 out the other side for not supporting their case. But as long as he crushed both sides, would you watch
00:05:11.500 it? Oh, you'd watch it. Yeah, you'd watch the hell out of that if he was mean to both sides. That would
00:05:20.640 be the hard part, right? Now, who else could do that? Can you think of anybody who would draw a big
00:05:27.320 audience for political stuff? Right? Political stuff is not naturally interesting. Trump could.
00:05:35.080 Trump could get the entire country watching a political show in which just two people argued
00:05:41.800 the two sides and he slammed both of them for being full of shit. You would watch that.
00:05:47.940 Now, what have we learned about the power of the media versus the power of government? Who has more
00:05:59.600 power, your politicians or your news sources? See where I'm going with this? Trump could have more power
00:06:09.860 over the direction of the United States with a TV show because there would be no competition.
00:06:17.880 Nobody else would be trying to give you both sides of any issue. That doesn't exist anywhere in our
00:06:24.760 news universe, right? And the problem, the reason it doesn't exist is who in the world could make that
00:06:35.180 interesting. How in the world can you make a debate on some policy interesting? Trump could.
00:06:46.340 Trump could do it easily. He just has to show up and be Trump and it would be the most interesting
00:06:52.800 thing you ever watched in your life. I saw somebody mentioned Dershowitz. It wouldn't be a bad idea
00:07:00.260 to also maybe include in the direction of the show, let's say a jury. So let's say that you've got a
00:07:09.120 host that's Trump and he's just being mean to both sides. So he's being basically Simon Cowell
00:07:15.260 on American Idol, but given both sides a good shot of it. Then the jury does their thing and the jury
00:07:24.980 decides who made the best argument. So you might put people like Ellen Dershowitz would be a perfect
00:07:30.640 example. People who have a history of being able to side with wherever the law and the argument go,
00:07:38.880 even if they happen to be associated with one side, if they have a history of being able to
00:07:44.100 cross boundaries easily, as Dershowitz does, perfect juror. Who else would be a good juror?
00:07:51.220 Or me. I'd be a great juror. I should be on that show, in the jury. For not every show, maybe a few
00:08:00.080 episodes or something. But I also have a history of being on whichever side the data indicates, at least
00:08:08.540 in my opinion, indicates I should be. So I don't have a fealty to the left or the right, so I could be a good
00:08:14.700 juror. Not the best in the world or anything, but you'd look for people like me to fill the
00:08:21.200 that role. Now, I think that that would have more impact on the public opinion of policies than
00:08:29.540 anything that's happening now. It would be a gigantic ratings bonanza. It would be impossible
00:08:36.020 to ignore. It would completely control the news headlines every time it happened. And I think
00:08:43.380 Trump would effectively control the country, just by being the person who let the arguments be heard
00:08:50.380 for the first time. It would be the only place you ever heard the arguments. If you're a normal
00:08:55.220 citizen, it's the only time you would hear them. So there it is. It's a gigantic open opportunity for
00:09:02.060 the president to control the direction of the country without breaking any laws, without doing
00:09:09.300 anything but entertaining us and educating us. Why not? Why not? You know, I've said up to this point
00:09:16.380 that the best ex-president ever was Jimmy Carter. Not so great in the presidenting department,
00:09:22.580 but as an ex-president, Jimmy frickin' Carter, right? As an ex-president, he's just going off and
00:09:30.680 building houses for homeless people and stuff. Let's have more of that. But I think also President
00:09:40.600 Trump could easily be the most successful ex-president. I mean, easily. It's just available
00:09:48.120 for him. All right, let's talk about China again. So there's a story in Fox News asking the same
00:09:56.880 questions I was asking, which is, why don't we quite understand why China was doing, allegedly,
00:10:03.700 so much better with coronavirus? Now, I think that no matter how much they're lying, and you have to
00:10:08.840 assume that they're lying a lot, even if they're lying about how much they're doing well with
00:10:15.220 coronavirus, we would notice. I mean, you couldn't miss it if they were doing poorly. So there's
00:10:22.920 something happening that China is doing that's working out. And I'm wondering if it comes down to
00:10:29.960 this one thing, where they, if you're in a hot spot, they'll make you stay in your home for two weeks.
00:10:38.840 And I thought to myself, why wouldn't that stop the entire epidemic? Suppose you just said,
00:10:47.180 hey, people, this is what we're going to do. I want all of you to stock up with food for two weeks.
00:10:55.080 And for two weeks, we're going to ask everybody to literally stay home. Don't get in your car.
00:11:01.840 Don't add gas. Don't buy food because you've already stocked up. Or if you do buy food, only use a
00:11:09.980 delivery service. Let's say the delivery services stay in business. But everyone else just stays home
00:11:17.840 for two weeks. Now, you couldn't do this. You couldn't do it in this country, right? So in the
00:11:24.680 comments, I'm seeing lots of resistance. So there's no legal way you could do it. But let me ask you
00:11:31.340 this. If you couldn't do it, wouldn't it solve the problem? Wouldn't you literally be done in two
00:11:40.080 weeks? I guess the only way you'd have exposure is if somebody in your house gave it to somebody else,
00:11:47.640 and then a week later, they gave it to someone else. And then at the end of it, that house would
00:11:51.520 still be infected, I guess, at the end of two weeks. So I guess that could happen. But suppose
00:11:57.280 you said everybody lock up for two weeks. Or how about this? You have to lock up for two weeks,
00:12:03.540 or until every member of the house has tested negative, I don't know, once or twice.
00:12:11.460 Because then you could get out in 24 hours if you got tested, right?
00:12:14.620 What about that? You have two choices. Have a positive test that says you're negative,
00:12:22.760 or stay in your house two weeks.
00:12:27.520 Somebody says this has nothing to do with the virus, for frick's sake. What do you mean it has
00:12:33.920 nothing to do with the virus? So there are still people who believe that the epidemic is a scamdemic,
00:12:42.120 and that the reason for the restrictions have nothing to do with the virus, but rather it's a big,
00:12:48.620 it's a plan by the globalists to control us. That's not happening. That might be among the dumbest
00:12:57.840 of the conspiracy theories, that the reason for the restrictions are all part of a global control,
00:13:05.600 you know, trying to train us to do anything that they want. There is no meeting where that
00:13:10.620 discussion is happening. There might be an outcome. It might be one of the outcomes is that the public
00:13:16.380 becomes better, I don't know, trained or something. But there's no meeting in which somebody is saying,
00:13:23.120 I think if we can get them to wear masks, our master plan will come together. That's not happening
00:13:29.940 anywhere. Now, can I prove it? I can't prove a negative. I can't prove something isn't happening.
00:13:35.900 But let's just say, it's so ridiculous that if you think that that's happening,
00:13:43.120 you really need to check all your other opinions, because they're probably wrong as well.
00:13:50.940 I don't know what it is about the people on the right who want to believe the globalist conspiracy
00:13:56.500 stuff. All you need to know is that people are tribal. People are tribal. There's nobody in China
00:14:05.640 who's coordinating with the people in Italy for their globalist plan. People in China are optimizing
00:14:13.840 China. People in other countries are optimizing their own country. There's no global elite that's
00:14:20.920 all of somehow all of these countries, you know, leaders or something working together. That's not
00:14:27.660 happening. You should debate someone on this, Scott. I don't know how to say this.
00:14:41.800 You don't need to debate people on, let's say, the question of whether the government are really
00:14:48.060 secret lizard people from another planet. I don't need to debate that. Because there's no fucking way
00:14:54.780 that's true. Do you know what else is something I don't need to debate? Don't need to look into it.
00:15:01.440 Don't need to research it. That there's a globalist plan to use the pandemic to train the population to
00:15:07.640 do this or that. It's just not a thing. Couldn't be a thing. Can never be a thing. Will never be a thing.
00:15:14.720 It's stupid. It's stupid. It's just stupid. It is. Sorry. We'll see how many users I lose for this.
00:15:23.220 I would like to shed as many losers, losers, as many users as possible who would believe that
00:15:30.400 there's some kind of a global conspiracy that this pandemic is part of it. If you believe that,
00:15:36.560 this is really the wrong kind of content for you. Because I don't do crazy shit. If you want crazy
00:15:45.780 shit, I'm sure you know where to find it. That's just crazy shit. All right. And you need to grow out
00:15:54.240 of that one. All right. I don't mean to be condescending, but there are some things that are
00:16:02.560 just so dumb. You can't deal with them on a regular basis. You can't. There just isn't a second
00:16:08.180 side to it. I'm really big on showing both sides of arguments. You know, I'm the one who will tell
00:16:14.080 you AOC isn't all bad. She's got good qualities. Same with Trump. I'm going to try to show you both
00:16:20.060 sides. But there's no both sides to the global pandemic is fake. That's just crazy shit. That's
00:16:29.000 just absolute crazy bullshit. It is just a real pandemic. There is a real disease. It's really
00:16:36.900 killing people. Tony Robbins has bought into the, unfortunately, the conspiracy side of things,
00:16:45.260 things, which is probably a big problem because Tony Robbins is unusually influential. He's
00:16:54.420 persuasive. And he's tremendous at what he does. You know, his main core job of helping you think
00:17:01.940 better and have higher performance and better success in life. I think that's all real. I think
00:17:07.940 Tony Robbins is the real deal in terms of helping people improve their life. So the main thing he does,
00:17:14.020 that's good stuff. And I don't, would not disparage that. But when he gets into maybe different
00:17:22.980 fields, I feel that he's not as strong. And there's a video of him, I just saw today, Tony Robbins
00:17:33.040 saying that his claim is that the death rate for the world is largely the same as it has been in prior
00:17:40.040 years. Meaning that the pandemic is a fake pandemic. If you believe that there's no change in the death
00:17:48.540 rate, how could there be a pandemic? What's wrong with that thinking? Can anybody tell me what is wrong
00:17:55.920 with Tony Robbins analysis? Let's, let's say he was right. Now, the first thing is, I think his data is
00:18:02.520 wrong. I don't think his data is right. But even if his data were right, why is the thinking wrong?
00:18:11.360 So, so Tony Robbins says, if the death rate in 2020 was about the same as, it's pretty close,
00:18:18.640 about the same as 2019 and 2018, how could you say that there's a pandemic in 2020,
00:18:24.180 2020, which allegedly is killing lots of people. And then Tony Robbins points out that coincidentally,
00:18:31.720 other causes of death went down the same amount as the coronavirus deaths allegedly went up.
00:18:42.000 What's wrong with this thinking?
00:18:46.100 Number one, it appears that we're not very good at counting who died of what. So that's,
00:18:51.840 that's the first thing. We're probably just not good at it. We probably, we probably don't know.
00:18:57.740 Somebody says, I have a blind spot.
00:19:04.040 You can fill in the blind spot. You can tell me what it is I'm missing. You can just say it.
00:19:10.280 You don't have to say, I have a blind spot. You can say, Scott, have you considered blah, blah?
00:19:16.860 And then I would read it and I would agree with it or not, but at least you would be useful.
00:19:21.840 It's not useful to say I have a blind spot. Just tell me what it is. We'll talk about it.
00:19:28.560 So what would you expect if the coronavirus was a scam? What would you expect things to look like?
00:19:37.580 And that it's not really killing anybody beyond normal. What would that look like?
00:19:43.100 Would it look like the death toll is about the same as last year? It would. So Tony Robbins is correct
00:19:51.600 that if it were a fake pandemic, one outcome you might expect is that there's no difference in the
00:19:59.440 death rate. So, so far he's on point, right? Good point. If it's a pandemic, where are the extra dead
00:20:07.140 people? Good point. Except we didn't have a pandemic that we did nothing about. What we had was a pandemic
00:20:18.580 which we did a lot about. For example, we drove less. Do you think there were fewer automobile deaths
00:20:27.500 because we drove far less? Almost has to be, right? How about other health-related problems? Do you think
00:20:37.460 people who did not have to commute and go to their stressful business situation, maybe they worked at
00:20:45.700 home, could it be less stressful? Could people have maybe taken care of their health a little bit better
00:20:52.120 because they were more focused on health because of the pandemic? Maybe. So the point is, what I would
00:20:59.760 expect if the pandemic were real, is there's a really good chance that the total death rate wouldn't
00:21:05.720 change much. In fact, I predicted that at the beginning of the pandemic. Does anybody remember me saying
00:21:12.820 that it is very likely we could end up with a lower death rate by locking down? You know, there's lots of,
00:21:21.020 you know, bad reasons to not lock down. But in terms of the death rate, it would keep people from
00:21:26.260 being active, and being active is in part what kills you, right? So first of all, the data is probably
00:21:35.680 inaccurate that the death rate is the same from year to year. Probably inaccurate. But secondly,
00:21:41.900 no matter whether it's accurate or not, you can't tell from it that the pandemic was real or not real.
00:21:47.980 All you know is that the death rate stayed the same. There are two reasons that could happen. One,
00:21:55.100 the pandemic was fake. Two, locking down saves a number of lives and it just balanced out,
00:22:03.820 just like you'd expect, or at least as I predicted. So I would worry about Tony Robbins weighing into this
00:22:13.080 because I think that he's a little too influential, just because he's good at this, good at communicating.
00:22:20.760 So I would worry about that. All right.
00:22:26.060 I still don't have a confirmation that this story is true, that Adam Schiff is angling to be the new
00:22:33.040 attorney general in California, and Newsom apparently could appoint him. Now, we've heard that Schiff is
00:22:40.280 trying to get that position. We don't know if it's confirmed. This is my line in the sand. I'm not
00:22:51.340 interested in local California politics. I live here, but I don't know. I just don't get interested
00:22:56.980 in it. But if this happens, if Adam Schiff actually gets appointed by Newsom to be the attorney general,
00:23:08.880 I have to get involved. That would be the point at which I would put a considerable amount of my time
00:23:16.120 and influence in getting Newsom out of office and getting the recall to work. Now, there's a recall
00:23:22.460 going on. They're getting close to the number of signatures they need for the recall. But
00:23:29.820 we still don't know, how do you sign that recall? So I've read a few stories that say there is a
00:23:40.360 recall effort and they're collecting signatures. So I live in California. And so I said to myself,
00:23:46.540 you know, I'd like to know where to sign that. Where do I go to be part of this? And so I look at the
00:23:53.440 stories and there's no link. A link that would tell me either how to sign up. Is there a way to do it
00:24:01.480 digitally? Do I have to sign in person? If there's a place I can go, I'll drive across town. What's the
00:24:09.460 closest place I could go to physically sign something? Or can I mail something in? Can I sign
00:24:16.580 on my own piece of paper if there's a form or something and just mail it in and they just add
00:24:21.520 it to the stack? How do I do it? Somebody says online, but where's the link? So here's my request.
00:24:30.760 And again, if Adam Schiff does not become the attorney general, I'm not going to be as interested.
00:24:35.880 You know, there are lots of things I'd like to see better in California. But this is my bottom
00:24:41.940 line. If you cross this Adam Schiff line, you have to lose your job. All right. Governor Newsom,
00:24:50.440 if you appoint Adam Schiff, you have to lose your job for that. That's the firing offense.
00:24:57.040 That would be a deep, deep insult to anybody living in this state
00:25:01.800 who has been watching any of the Adam Schiff show for the last several years. A deep insult.
00:25:09.480 And so I would ask if somebody can get me a link or directions, send it to me on Twitter on how one
00:25:17.700 would go about signing this recall. I will make sure that I pump the shit out of it if Adam Schiff
00:25:25.000 becomes attorney general. If he doesn't, I'll be less interested. But just let me know. Okay.
00:25:31.460 I'm seeing a link there. RecallGavin2020.com. I'll check that out. RecallGavin2020.com,
00:25:41.100 it sounds like. So let's look into that. AOC is getting some heat. So she did an impassioned and
00:25:49.380 well-done live stream in which she talked about her, I guess, sexual abuse trauma when she was
00:25:56.740 younger. We don't have details of that. But she tied that into the story quite artfully about how
00:26:03.020 afraid she was during the Capitol assault. But as Jack Posobiec pointed out on Twitter,
00:26:11.880 the place that she was during the assault was not really that close to where the rioters had entered
00:26:19.240 the dome of the Capitol building. So her building looked like from an aerial photo about two blocks
00:26:25.960 away. And it was an area in which there wasn't much activity. There was a law enforcement person
00:26:34.740 who herded them into a safer place, but that's sort of all it was. So did she have a right to
00:26:41.860 be as scared as she presented? Well, it's not up to us to tell someone else how scared they should
00:26:50.220 be. You could certainly make the case that she had legitimate danger. It just wasn't as imminent
00:27:03.400 as maybe she projected. But there was danger. So I'd say close enough. Remember, I'm just
00:27:11.840 judging AOC by the Trump standard, which is if she does a good job of getting attention and focusing
00:27:18.280 attention where she wants your attention to be. That's a good job. So she's Trump light. I think
00:27:25.860 that's what I'll call her Trump light. And she did a good job of focusing attention. I don't think
00:27:31.860 anybody's going to care that she was two blocks away. And it wasn't as imminent exactly as maybe she
00:27:39.140 presented it. Here's a story I've seen so far only in Breitbart. You know, this is one of those
00:27:49.140 reasons that you need to sample news from the left and the right. By the way, there's a, I think you'll
00:27:57.860 see us soon. You know, Grounded News, I tweet them quite often. Grounded News is a site and an app that
00:28:06.500 lets you see each story and which news entities are covering it. So you can see, for example, if the
00:28:12.940 left ignores a story or the right ignores a story. And it's becoming a big problem that the left or the
00:28:20.140 right will just completely ignore a story that the other finds important. So here's one that I've
00:28:25.860 only seen in Breitbart. I don't know if it exists anywhere else. But Mark Elias, and Joel Pollack
00:28:31.340 reported on this, Mark Elias, the election lawyer who represented Democrat challenges to state rules.
00:28:39.780 Now, if you haven't heard this name before, Mark Elias, he's probably maybe the most important person
00:28:47.640 in the country in terms of how the election turned out. Did you know that? Did you know there was a,
00:28:54.700 this is one guy, one lawyer, who probably had more to do with the election outcome than any other
00:29:01.140 factor or any other person? I guess he was really successful in getting states to modify their state
00:29:09.540 rules for the 2020 election. And those rules favored Democrats. And he was very successful in getting
00:29:16.580 some of those through. So that's his history. And now it turns out he's also representing a congressional
00:29:24.380 person who did not get quite enough votes. And he's arguing that there's some discrepancy with
00:29:35.240 the voting process. I guess the vote, the votes counted by hand did not match the votes counted by the
00:29:43.260 machines. And he's arguing that the voting machines. And he's arguing that the voting machines operated
00:29:48.040 improperly. So the guy most, most associated with the way 2020 was run is now complaining that in this
00:29:58.940 case in New York, that voting machines were irregular.
00:30:02.640 Well, I'll add to this, that you notice that there's no big news story about a bipartisan effort, or even a
00:30:20.960 partisan effort, to fix election transparency for next time. Is there? Have you seen any reporting on that?
00:30:29.040 As far as I know, your government, both Republicans and Democrats have decided to reproduce the problem
00:30:38.460 of 2020, which is the election was not sufficiently transparent for everybody to feel comfortable
00:30:43.940 about it. And they're going to reproduce that quite consciously, won't be an accident, because everybody
00:30:51.160 knows what's happening, they know exactly what will happen. And your government has decided,
00:30:55.540 apparently, collectively, to reproduce the problem that almost drove the country into a civil war.
00:31:03.440 Now, I don't think it was almost a civil war, but it seemed pretty bad.
00:31:08.060 What do you make of that? There's not even, not even an attempt. Not even waving their hands. Nobody's
00:31:16.140 saying, oh, it's fine the way it is. They're just gonna simply fucking ignore it. That's it.
00:31:22.720 Your government is just gonna fucking ignore the will of the people who say, we just want
00:31:30.480 to know we got a real election. We just want to know there's some transparency. Government
00:31:38.500 won't do it. They won't even try. Won't even try. Do you know why? Why is it that your government
00:31:46.900 won't try to give you elections that have clear transparency? Well, probably a variety of reasons.
00:31:55.100 It's hard. It's not rewarding. Blah, blah, blah. But here's the biggest problem. If the government
00:32:02.180 says we have to fix transparency for next time, what have they told you about the last time?
00:32:08.440 Yeah, that's right. They can't fix it until they admit it was broken. And they can't admit it was
00:32:16.720 broken. Because even saying it was lacking transparency, which would be very different
00:32:22.040 from saying there was any fraud. Lacking transparency is not the same as saying there was fraud.
00:32:30.300 It's just saying that you could see it if it existed or not. All right. But they can't go that far
00:32:36.260 either. Because even saying that there was not sufficiently, there was not sufficient transparency
00:32:41.660 would tell you that the last election was not that credible. And they've told, they just spent the
00:32:48.240 last several months telling you, oh, it's credible. Anybody who doesn't think this election is credible
00:32:53.380 is a conspiracy theory, tinfoil hat, traitor, traitor to the country. So the government has created a
00:33:02.220 situation along with the fake news where we have the biggest problem in the country and we can't even
00:33:08.560 talk about it. Can't even talk about it. Because talking about it makes this last election look less
00:33:16.020 credible. Could you even imagine a less capable government than one who created a situation where
00:33:25.180 they can't even talk about it? Much less fix. They can't even talk about fixing the problem.
00:33:33.180 The biggest problem in the country. The biggest problem. Because if you don't get the election
00:33:38.080 part right, eventually it's all going to fall apart. Right? Yeah, that's the baseline. You got to get the
00:33:43.780 voting credibility right. Or you don't have anything in the long run.
00:33:49.400 So there's that. Let me defend John Kerry and his private jet. As you know, John Kerry is some kind
00:33:59.560 of a climate czar now. He's been fighting for climate change remediation for a long time. And I guess he
00:34:09.480 went to collect a private, some kind of an award for his work. Award for his work, but he went there in a
00:34:20.740 private jet. So people are saying, why the hell is somebody calling me at this time of day? Like,
00:34:28.620 seriously, who? I mean, I just have to look to see who would call me at this time of day. Unknown. All
00:34:35.660 right. So he's got a private jet. And people are saying, how could you care about the environment
00:34:42.480 when you've got this private jet? And then the reporting on it is that his family's private jet
00:34:47.120 spent over 20 hours in the air over the past year, which creates a lot of metric tons of carbon
00:34:53.640 emissions. 20 hours? That's the family private jet only had 20 hours in the whole last year. That's
00:35:04.560 what? Two flights across the country? That's it? 20 hours? That's really not very much. Now,
00:35:14.060 I would like to say that our leaders who are doing important work, be they CEOs or presidents or
00:35:23.160 cabinet members or senators, I think they should fly private. I think John Kerry should fly private.
00:35:31.640 And do I care that the topic he's worrying about is climate change? No, it's a perfectly
00:35:39.820 acceptable investment to spend a little bit on CO2. Let's say you think CO2 is a problem.
00:35:48.320 It is perfectly acceptable to spend a little CO2 on our leaders who are doing the most work on
00:35:55.700 reducing it overall. I don't see any problem with that. I don't have a problem that the President
00:36:02.140 of the United States has a good salary. I don't have a problem that the President of the United
00:36:06.900 States gets Secret Service protection, and you don't. I don't have a problem that the President
00:36:12.620 gets to live in a really nice house, and you don't. I don't have a problem that the President has a nice,
00:36:18.700 presumably a pension or a retirement fund
00:36:23.920 with other budget to get stuff done.
00:36:26.520 No problem with that at all.
00:36:28.300 I think our leaders should be doing what is most efficient,
00:36:33.840 even if that's not the most role-modely thing they can do.
00:36:38.140 If you had a choice,
00:36:40.640 let's say you believe that climate change is real and it's a problem.
00:36:44.740 Just accept that as the hypothetical for now,
00:36:47.400 even if you don't believe that.
00:36:49.280 If you believe that climate change is a real problem,
00:36:52.380 then you want your leaders who are doing the most about it
00:36:55.060 to be as effective as possible, efficient, don't waste any time.
00:36:59.500 Yeah, flying private makes perfect sense.
00:37:02.980 So the hypocrisy claim against Kerry,
00:37:07.760 that he's flying a private jet while complaining about using too much fuel,
00:37:12.700 it's a true statement.
00:37:15.100 It's just bullshit.
00:37:16.280 It's just bullshit.
00:37:18.160 You do want your CEOs and your leaders
00:37:20.940 to travel more efficiently than you do.
00:37:23.980 That's exactly what you'd want.
00:37:26.720 So imagining that you don't want that is just,
00:37:29.560 it's really not adult.
00:37:31.780 So it's fun to talk about,
00:37:34.660 but it's a small point.
00:37:38.420 Rand Paul seems to be a leading voice these days about transgender sports.
00:37:47.340 And his main complaint, if I can summarize it accurately,
00:37:52.040 is that if transgender folks are allowed in sports to play,
00:37:58.380 at least if transgenders are allowed to play in women's sports,
00:38:02.520 that it would be unfair to women.
00:38:07.180 Now, I've made this argument before,
00:38:09.260 but I'm going to make it again and see if I can do it better.
00:38:12.680 However, why do we have an obligation to make sure that there are some women
00:38:18.680 who can also win athletic scholarships or excel in sports?
00:38:24.060 Now, I have no objection to doing it,
00:38:27.060 but I'm asking you, why is that important?
00:38:29.840 Why would we as a society need to carve out a little area
00:38:36.960 where women in particular can win sporting things?
00:38:41.160 Do you know who also can't win any sporting awards?
00:38:47.180 I'm going to give you an example of a person
00:38:48.960 who, like the women would be,
00:38:51.480 if transgender athletes were dominating their sports.
00:38:55.120 Let's say if that happened.
00:38:56.520 Who else would be in the same boat as all of those women
00:39:01.880 who could now not really have an expectation
00:39:05.320 of excelling at the top of their sport?
00:39:08.220 Who else would be in that same boat?
00:39:11.460 Me.
00:39:12.920 Me.
00:39:14.580 Why is it fair that I can't win any awards for sports?
00:39:18.980 Why is that fair?
00:39:20.240 Now, you say to me,
00:39:20.960 but Scott, you're a senior citizen practically.
00:39:24.680 Hmm, depending on your point of view.
00:39:28.240 You're a senior citizen,
00:39:29.560 and you're not very large,
00:39:31.520 and you're not very athletic,
00:39:33.320 and there's an obvious reason
00:39:36.460 that you don't win any sports.
00:39:38.600 To which I say,
00:39:39.920 oh, are you saying that my inability
00:39:42.320 to excel at sports
00:39:44.420 is what's keeping me from winning?
00:39:46.780 How is that fair?
00:39:47.700 How is it fair that people who are my age
00:39:52.260 and my size and my level of talent
00:39:55.300 can't win awards and get scholarships to college?
00:39:59.180 Why is that fair?
00:40:01.100 Why am I being shut out from sports?
00:40:05.380 Now, what you should be saying is,
00:40:07.080 uh, that's kind of ridiculous.
00:40:09.040 You're not being shut out from sports.
00:40:11.300 You're just not good at sports.
00:40:12.900 To which I say,
00:40:15.400 that would be the same situation
00:40:17.840 if transgenders are playing
00:40:19.560 on traditional women's teams.
00:40:22.760 There will be some number of women
00:40:24.400 who are under that scenario
00:40:26.600 would have ordinarily maybe been winning something,
00:40:30.520 but now they're no longer the good ones.
00:40:33.420 And so they don't win stuff.
00:40:35.240 Is that unfair?
00:40:37.580 Because to me,
00:40:38.840 if you count out the number of people who won,
00:40:41.920 it's the same number.
00:40:44.340 You say you have the same number of people winning
00:40:46.200 and the same number of people losing as before.
00:40:49.340 Why is it fair that I can't be a winner,
00:40:54.280 but it's unfair if the woman
00:40:56.960 who got displaced by the transgender athlete
00:40:59.600 in this scenario,
00:41:01.640 why is that not fair?
00:41:03.420 I mean, why is one unfair and the other one isn't?
00:41:06.940 To me, sports are an unfair...
00:41:09.760 I see people yelling Title IX.
00:41:13.680 I know what the law is,
00:41:15.960 but why does the law need to be that?
00:41:18.660 Why do we have a weird law
00:41:20.220 that carves out this little area
00:41:21.820 and says, okay,
00:41:23.240 this protected group
00:41:25.340 gets to have a sports winner?
00:41:27.180 Why can't we have a Title IX
00:41:31.400 for people under six feet tall
00:41:33.400 who are male?
00:41:34.820 If you're male and you're under six feet tall,
00:41:38.400 you're kind of closed out from a lot of sports.
00:41:42.040 We should have a separate category
00:41:43.680 for short men
00:41:46.380 who can't win anything
00:41:48.180 unless they get some help.
00:41:49.960 We should have our own category
00:41:51.220 so we can win some awards.
00:41:52.400 The people who are saying,
00:41:57.520 you are so wrong,
00:41:58.560 you're wrong.
00:41:59.560 It's men, it's women.
00:42:01.840 I would argue that your argument
00:42:04.280 is based on reflex and history
00:42:08.400 and just what you're used to.
00:42:11.000 It's not based in any way
00:42:13.420 on anything logical or fair
00:42:17.180 or sensical or mathematical
00:42:20.080 or logical or strategic.
00:42:23.800 There is no basis for your argument
00:42:26.160 except that you're used to a certain situation
00:42:29.200 and once you get used to it,
00:42:31.060 it's hard to change.
00:42:34.080 Now, would it be unfair to,
00:42:37.100 let's say, biologically,
00:42:40.080 whatever is the non-offensive term?
00:42:43.140 You know, I say this
00:42:43.820 whenever I talk about transgender stuff.
00:42:45.480 If I use a term that's offensive,
00:42:47.580 it's not intentional.
00:42:49.480 So just know it's not intentional, right?
00:42:51.140 So if I accidentally use some offensive term.
00:42:56.400 Somebody says,
00:42:57.340 how about a white basketball league?
00:42:58.820 Exactly.
00:43:00.100 Exactly.
00:43:00.880 How about a Jewish basketball league?
00:43:04.660 How many Jewish NBA superstars are there?
00:43:09.300 Might be a few.
00:43:10.440 I don't know.
00:43:10.900 I don't really follow sports.
00:43:12.740 But don't you think
00:43:13.740 there are lots of other categories?
00:43:15.920 Need to get carved out?
00:43:17.060 What about blind athletes?
00:43:21.500 Why can't you win a first place
00:43:24.040 in a sport if you're blind?
00:43:27.460 Seems like they should
00:43:28.640 have their own category, right?
00:43:30.960 So here's my point.
00:43:32.520 I don't think it was ever a mistake
00:43:34.540 to have a special sports category
00:43:37.580 for women and for girls.
00:43:39.820 I think that made sense.
00:43:41.480 If you could have sports for boys,
00:43:43.460 you damn well ought to have sports for girls.
00:43:46.400 Duh.
00:43:47.460 Right?
00:43:47.720 I think that's just basic.
00:43:49.940 But the thinking was
00:43:51.480 that if you had sports for boys
00:43:53.040 and you had sports for girls,
00:43:54.400 you've covered all the bases.
00:43:56.300 That was the old thinking.
00:43:58.360 And then the transgender situation
00:44:01.120 caused that simple model
00:44:03.020 to be a little bit questioned.
00:44:04.400 It's a simple adjustment.
00:44:08.760 All we were trying to do
00:44:10.180 with women's sports and men's sports
00:44:11.980 is make sure everybody had sports.
00:44:14.140 Why would the transgenders
00:44:15.460 not get to have a sport?
00:44:17.400 Now you're probably saying to me,
00:44:19.420 Scott,
00:44:20.340 why don't the transgender athletes
00:44:24.420 who were born biologically male,
00:44:26.460 why are they not forced
00:44:28.660 to play on the male teams?
00:44:31.140 To which I say,
00:44:32.120 I'm okay with that.
00:44:34.360 I'm okay with that.
00:44:36.020 That would make perfect sense.
00:44:37.600 Indeed,
00:44:38.420 there are examples
00:44:39.560 of female athletes
00:44:41.000 who are so skilled
00:44:43.260 that it makes more sense
00:44:44.680 for them to play on a man's team.
00:44:47.640 I'm okay with that too.
00:44:49.700 I think that
00:44:50.460 I'd rather see people
00:44:51.780 who are roughly
00:44:52.520 the same level of skill
00:44:54.140 play on the same teams.
00:44:55.820 So if that means
00:44:56.800 that a transgender athlete
00:44:58.840 who would prefer
00:45:00.160 to play on the women's team
00:45:01.580 is caused
00:45:03.100 by the school administrators
00:45:04.480 to play on the men's team
00:45:05.820 as a different gender,
00:45:08.100 I don't see what's wrong with that.
00:45:10.260 Why can't the school say
00:45:12.060 that we're going to make
00:45:13.660 some adjustments
00:45:14.380 based on talent level
00:45:15.860 and maybe physical size
00:45:17.340 and that it has nothing to do
00:45:19.420 with being men or women?
00:45:20.980 So the transgender athlete
00:45:22.300 has every right to play a sport
00:45:24.120 just like everybody else.
00:45:25.820 But maybe it's the coach
00:45:27.200 who decides which team
00:45:29.060 they're on.
00:45:30.420 How's that wrong?
00:45:31.860 Would you have a problem
00:45:32.620 with that?
00:45:33.400 If you give...
00:45:34.280 Let me say just this one change,
00:45:37.020 just this one change,
00:45:38.640 that the coach
00:45:39.900 gets to decide
00:45:41.640 which team you play on.
00:45:43.240 The traditional women's team
00:45:45.140 or the traditional men's team.
00:45:46.400 And that's it.
00:45:47.260 But otherwise,
00:45:48.360 transgender can be an athlete
00:45:50.160 just like everybody else.
00:45:52.260 That's it.
00:45:52.660 That's the whole thing.
00:45:53.540 Just the coach
00:45:54.140 gets to decide.
00:45:55.600 And it's based on safety alone.
00:45:57.940 It has nothing to do with gender.
00:45:59.660 They just say,
00:46:00.320 oh,
00:46:01.120 this female athlete
00:46:03.080 is so good
00:46:04.020 she might even hurt
00:46:05.980 other women
00:46:06.620 playing on the team,
00:46:07.580 so we'll put her
00:46:08.220 on the women's team.
00:46:10.040 It doesn't matter
00:46:10.640 if this athlete
00:46:11.420 is transgender or not.
00:46:13.120 That's irrelevant.
00:46:14.260 It's just based on safety
00:46:15.420 and quality.
00:46:16.620 So I would agree
00:46:21.080 that we should try
00:46:23.500 to get everybody
00:46:24.280 into sports
00:46:25.160 or nobody,
00:46:26.220 but it should be the same.
00:46:28.420 I just think
00:46:29.160 there's an easy way to do it.
00:46:30.540 All right.
00:46:32.780 Ilhan Omar
00:46:33.700 has said this
00:46:34.600 about the Republican Party.
00:46:35.940 The Republicans
00:46:36.400 truly have lost their way.
00:46:38.720 They've destroyed their base.
00:46:40.320 And she says,
00:46:41.120 now the base
00:46:41.620 of the Republican Party
00:46:42.500 is conspiracy theorists.
00:46:44.740 It's cowards.
00:46:45.480 It's opportunists.
00:46:47.060 It's grifters.
00:46:48.560 And sadly,
00:46:49.280 they've become
00:46:49.880 the Looney Tunes.
00:46:51.740 These are people
00:46:52.680 we can't take serious.
00:46:54.800 She means seriously.
00:46:56.120 They're not here
00:46:56.900 to do the people's business.
00:46:58.340 They're not to just
00:46:58.920 be obstructionists
00:46:59.920 and blah, blah, blah, blah.
00:47:01.760 And I say to myself,
00:47:03.820 when leaders
00:47:05.540 treat the entire
00:47:07.980 opposite party
00:47:08.900 like they're all
00:47:09.500 the same person
00:47:10.360 and it's the worst
00:47:12.100 of those people,
00:47:13.540 that's not a leader
00:47:14.640 you can support.
00:47:16.620 And I would say that
00:47:17.960 no matter if it were
00:47:19.000 a Republican
00:47:19.620 saying this about Democrats.
00:47:21.940 I mean,
00:47:22.160 is there any Republican
00:47:23.180 who would say
00:47:23.900 that the base
00:47:25.920 of the Democrat Party
00:47:27.000 are cowards
00:47:28.580 and grifters
00:47:29.180 and whatever?
00:47:31.180 Do you feel that?
00:47:32.520 Do you feel like
00:47:33.200 the base,
00:47:34.860 like the main Democrats
00:47:36.180 are just crazy?
00:47:37.860 I don't feel that.
00:47:41.320 And when you hear
00:47:42.300 a leader saying
00:47:43.180 stuff like that,
00:47:43.980 that should be disqualifying.
00:47:45.720 Just any statement
00:47:46.720 that takes
00:47:47.780 any large group
00:47:48.820 of people
00:47:49.220 and says
00:47:49.660 they're all the same
00:47:50.700 and they're bad.
00:47:52.860 That's what she's
00:47:53.780 basically saying.
00:47:54.880 That the base
00:47:55.560 of the Republican
00:47:56.380 are kind of the same,
00:47:57.980 all these crazy
00:47:58.740 loony-toon people
00:47:59.660 and it's bad.
00:48:01.440 That should be
00:48:02.320 automatically disqualifying
00:48:04.120 for public office.
00:48:05.400 If you say that
00:48:06.740 about any group,
00:48:07.620 it wouldn't matter
00:48:08.120 if it were Republicans
00:48:09.020 or anybody else.
00:48:10.380 If they're Americans,
00:48:11.280 you just shouldn't be able
00:48:12.160 to talk like that
00:48:13.020 and keep your job.
00:48:15.440 Anyway,
00:48:15.980 and that's not,
00:48:16.800 I'm not talking about
00:48:17.720 wokeness
00:48:18.380 or political correctness.
00:48:20.460 I'm saying that
00:48:20.980 you can't be a leader
00:48:21.940 if you're accusing
00:48:24.360 your own people
00:48:25.200 that you're leading
00:48:25.900 of being terrible people.
00:48:27.620 That's kind of basic.
00:48:31.740 Have you noticed
00:48:32.760 that China treats
00:48:34.520 Islam and COVID
00:48:36.380 the same way
00:48:37.120 with quarantines?
00:48:40.180 I've said this before
00:48:41.360 but it's sort of remarkable
00:48:44.080 in terms of the difference
00:48:46.300 of how China thinks
00:48:48.040 of things like religion
00:48:49.340 and the rest of the world does.
00:48:52.260 And I'm not even going to say
00:48:53.240 they're wrong or right.
00:48:54.880 It's just an interesting contrast.
00:48:57.360 So China treats
00:48:58.320 a mental virus,
00:49:01.180 if you will,
00:49:02.320 just like a medical problem.
00:49:04.520 And in their opinion,
00:49:07.300 the Uyghurs,
00:49:08.300 being Islamic,
00:49:10.220 have essentially
00:49:11.900 a mental disease.
00:49:13.620 That's the way
00:49:14.480 the Chinese are treating it.
00:49:16.400 And they're treating it
00:49:17.220 by quarantine
00:49:17.900 and re-education.
00:49:20.320 It's basically
00:49:21.160 the way you treat a virus.
00:49:24.060 And
00:49:24.360 here's the weird thing.
00:49:27.300 suppose China went
00:49:29.500 the other way.
00:49:31.440 It's not going to happen.
00:49:32.580 Suppose they went
00:49:33.400 the other way
00:49:33.820 and said,
00:49:34.120 you know,
00:49:34.920 freedom or religion.
00:49:37.180 Well,
00:49:37.620 I would imagine
00:49:38.220 that the Islamic
00:49:39.500 population within China
00:49:41.140 would expand
00:49:42.020 over time.
00:49:43.260 They might have
00:49:44.080 more children
00:49:44.720 if they followed
00:49:46.080 their religious,
00:49:47.680 let's say,
00:49:48.440 cultural patterns.
00:49:49.640 and eventually
00:49:51.960 Islamic
00:49:53.020 conflict
00:49:54.500 of,
00:49:55.380 you know,
00:49:55.500 their belief system
00:49:56.520 with the Chinese
00:49:57.400 government's belief system
00:49:58.860 quite incompatible.
00:50:01.240 And it would be
00:50:02.120 a growing and growing
00:50:03.200 problem,
00:50:04.100 like a,
00:50:04.420 sort of like a tumor
00:50:05.360 growing within China.
00:50:07.580 Now,
00:50:08.140 I say that
00:50:08.780 regardless of
00:50:09.820 who the group is.
00:50:10.940 Now,
00:50:11.200 we're talking about
00:50:11.840 the Uyghurs
00:50:12.360 and we're talking
00:50:12.940 about Islam,
00:50:13.680 but it would be
00:50:14.320 the same
00:50:14.720 if it were
00:50:15.260 a Christian
00:50:16.060 group
00:50:17.280 that were doing
00:50:18.260 a lot of,
00:50:18.860 you know,
00:50:19.720 missionary stuff
00:50:20.500 and trying to
00:50:21.060 grow their numbers.
00:50:22.800 A Christian
00:50:23.840 group
00:50:24.620 growing within China
00:50:25.780 would also be
00:50:26.660 incompatible
00:50:27.380 with the Chinese
00:50:29.220 system.
00:50:29.760 So eventually
00:50:30.300 that small problem
00:50:31.240 would become bigger.
00:50:32.800 So China
00:50:33.240 deals with it
00:50:34.080 by trying to
00:50:35.540 eradicate
00:50:36.300 the disease,
00:50:39.020 the disease
00:50:40.120 of religion
00:50:40.720 as they would see it.
00:50:42.840 And ask yourself this,
00:50:46.420 are they wrong?
00:50:52.220 Are they wrong?
00:50:54.680 And let me say it
00:50:55.840 this way.
00:50:57.000 We,
00:50:57.440 we in this,
00:50:58.340 certainly in the United States
00:50:59.720 and most of you
00:51:00.820 watching this,
00:51:02.180 would put freedom
00:51:03.340 of thought
00:51:04.240 and freedom
00:51:04.800 of religion,
00:51:05.420 freedom of speech
00:51:06.400 as our highest
00:51:07.240 principles.
00:51:08.440 So of course
00:51:09.020 it's wrong
00:51:09.480 by our standards.
00:51:11.040 It's as wrong
00:51:11.680 as you could get.
00:51:13.280 And we seem
00:51:14.180 to have figured out
00:51:14.920 how to make
00:51:15.340 a country work
00:51:16.240 with all this,
00:51:17.820 you know,
00:51:18.060 different views
00:51:19.000 of the world.
00:51:20.300 But in China,
00:51:22.100 given the size
00:51:23.280 of their country
00:51:23.920 and how hard
00:51:24.600 it would be
00:51:25.100 to control
00:51:25.900 a country
00:51:26.420 of that size,
00:51:27.640 I feel like
00:51:28.700 it's a different
00:51:29.200 risk level.
00:51:30.720 That their risk
00:51:31.860 of letting
00:51:32.420 another religion
00:51:33.560 become big enough
00:51:34.840 to conflict
00:51:35.520 with the government's
00:51:36.660 control,
00:51:38.180 that may be
00:51:39.540 a risk
00:51:40.140 that risks,
00:51:41.440 I don't know,
00:51:41.960 millions of deaths.
00:51:43.760 If it became
00:51:44.660 a big civil war
00:51:45.880 at some point
00:51:46.500 in the future,
00:51:47.620 it could actually
00:51:48.480 threaten the entire
00:51:49.580 existence of China
00:51:50.700 as a good
00:51:51.740 functioning body.
00:51:55.040 So I think
00:51:55.840 China is almost
00:51:56.780 treating it
00:51:57.280 in a war-like
00:51:58.380 stance,
00:51:59.380 that you can't
00:52:00.580 allow that
00:52:01.120 level of freedom
00:52:02.000 because it
00:52:03.600 weakens the
00:52:04.640 country.
00:52:06.180 In the long
00:52:07.160 term,
00:52:07.420 it would
00:52:07.640 weaken the
00:52:08.080 country.
00:52:08.700 And again,
00:52:09.220 I'm not saying
00:52:09.880 it weakens the
00:52:10.540 country because
00:52:11.240 it's Islamic.
00:52:12.840 I'm not saying
00:52:13.520 it weakens the
00:52:14.180 country because
00:52:14.800 it could be
00:52:15.800 Christian or
00:52:16.580 it could be
00:52:17.480 Judaism or
00:52:18.580 any other
00:52:19.020 religion.
00:52:20.200 I'm saying
00:52:20.620 that anything
00:52:21.080 that's incompatible
00:52:22.260 with the
00:52:23.420 Chinese government
00:52:24.440 way of doing
00:52:25.880 things eventually
00:52:27.280 is going to be
00:52:27.820 a problem.
00:52:29.160 And it's a
00:52:29.640 big country,
00:52:30.360 so it could
00:52:30.820 be a big
00:52:31.240 problem.
00:52:32.320 So is
00:52:32.660 China wrong
00:52:33.480 to eliminate
00:52:35.540 that risk?
00:52:38.800 By our
00:52:39.600 standards,
00:52:40.240 100% wrong.
00:52:42.140 If you
00:52:42.920 said what
00:52:43.700 will save
00:52:44.480 the most
00:52:44.900 lives,
00:52:46.620 I don't
00:52:47.160 know.
00:52:48.120 That is a
00:52:48.800 little less
00:52:49.380 clear.
00:52:50.620 They might
00:52:51.080 be doing
00:52:51.520 what will
00:52:51.940 save the
00:52:52.460 most Chinese
00:52:53.480 lives,
00:52:53.980 at least,
00:52:54.880 but at
00:52:55.440 the great
00:52:56.300 risk of
00:52:57.420 essentially
00:52:58.000 perpetrating a
00:52:59.460 holocaust.
00:53:00.660 Not
00:53:01.100 essentially.
00:53:01.620 It's
00:53:01.760 basically a
00:53:02.460 holocaust
00:53:02.980 against the
00:53:03.600 Uyghurs.
00:53:04.520 And we,
00:53:05.300 the rest of
00:53:05.980 us,
00:53:06.240 we just
00:53:07.060 fucking watch
00:53:07.780 it.
00:53:08.460 Just like
00:53:09.300 it's not
00:53:09.740 happening.
00:53:10.660 We watch
00:53:11.460 it, we
00:53:11.940 mention it,
00:53:12.600 we tweet
00:53:13.080 about it,
00:53:13.660 but we
00:53:14.460 don't care.
00:53:15.700 Let's be
00:53:16.440 honest.
00:53:17.680 The rest
00:53:18.420 of the
00:53:18.660 world is
00:53:20.100 perfectly
00:53:20.640 willing to
00:53:21.320 let another
00:53:21.860 holocaust
00:53:22.480 happen right
00:53:23.200 in front of
00:53:23.600 us.
00:53:24.440 So if you
00:53:24.920 thought that
00:53:25.420 the original
00:53:26.600 holocaust in
00:53:28.240 Nazi Germany,
00:53:29.760 if you
00:53:30.120 thought that
00:53:30.560 that really
00:53:31.040 was a
00:53:31.460 never-again
00:53:31.960 situation,
00:53:33.240 maybe never
00:53:34.360 again for
00:53:34.960 the Jewish
00:53:35.420 population.
00:53:36.520 Maybe they
00:53:37.020 have enough
00:53:37.380 power now
00:53:37.920 that they
00:53:38.260 could make
00:53:38.560 that never
00:53:39.120 happen again.
00:53:40.080 But it
00:53:40.480 is happening.
00:53:42.180 So it's
00:53:43.160 happening right
00:53:44.600 now.
00:53:46.060 Will China
00:53:46.500 kill more
00:53:47.000 people with
00:53:47.560 fentanyl or
00:53:48.540 will they do
00:53:49.060 it with
00:53:49.340 propaganda or
00:53:50.500 economic
00:53:51.580 warfare or
00:53:52.580 with COVID?
00:53:53.200 I asked
00:53:53.880 that question
00:53:54.460 on Twitter.
00:53:56.280 And
00:53:56.560 interestingly,
00:53:57.780 COVID was
00:53:58.720 the lowest
00:53:59.500 response.
00:54:00.880 So obviously
00:54:01.720 a very
00:54:02.100 unscientific
00:54:02.840 poll.
00:54:03.620 But the
00:54:04.040 public
00:54:04.400 answering it
00:54:05.080 thought that
00:54:05.800 China will
00:54:06.540 kill more
00:54:07.040 people with
00:54:07.820 their other
00:54:08.900 ways of
00:54:09.460 killing people
00:54:10.060 as opposed
00:54:11.160 to the
00:54:11.980 pandemic.
00:54:15.540 All right.
00:54:18.740 That is
00:54:19.840 what I wanted
00:54:20.340 to say for
00:54:21.100 today.
00:54:22.060 Just to
00:54:22.900 make you
00:54:25.200 extra
00:54:26.040 unhappy with
00:54:26.780 me, I'm
00:54:27.940 putting together
00:54:28.640 a list of
00:54:30.060 things that
00:54:30.700 for reasons
00:54:31.480 I don't
00:54:31.940 quite understand
00:54:32.840 conservatives
00:54:34.840 don't get
00:54:36.280 about the
00:54:37.300 pandemic.
00:54:38.660 So when I'm
00:54:39.640 done with my
00:54:40.120 list, I will
00:54:40.760 present it for
00:54:41.940 maximum anger,
00:54:44.400 I suppose,
00:54:45.840 provocation.
00:54:47.720 And I
00:54:49.700 think I'm
00:54:50.060 going to do
00:54:50.360 it in two
00:54:50.860 passes.
00:54:52.260 I'm going
00:54:52.640 to do one
00:54:54.000 pass in which
00:54:54.840 I put out
00:54:55.440 there, just
00:54:56.080 what I think
00:54:56.780 conservatives are
00:54:57.720 not understanding
00:54:58.560 about a
00:55:00.240 pandemic.
00:55:01.380 And by the
00:55:01.880 way, I'm
00:55:02.220 sure I could
00:55:02.640 do it for
00:55:03.080 the left
00:55:03.580 as well.
00:55:04.260 It's just
00:55:04.600 that there's
00:55:05.020 a special
00:55:05.780 set of
00:55:06.580 things that
00:55:07.160 conservatives
00:55:07.720 seem to
00:55:08.160 believe that
00:55:09.240 is limited
00:55:10.340 to conservatives
00:55:11.080 it seems
00:55:11.540 like.
00:55:12.640 And I
00:55:14.180 want to put
00:55:14.540 that together
00:55:14.980 so you can
00:55:15.480 get a sense
00:55:16.100 of what
00:55:16.840 things your
00:55:17.840 own side is
00:55:18.660 not telling
00:55:19.220 you.
00:55:20.180 Because if
00:55:20.780 you don't
00:55:21.100 sample the
00:55:21.720 news on
00:55:22.600 both sides,
00:55:23.900 it would be
00:55:24.480 easy to
00:55:25.060 imagine that
00:55:25.720 some of
00:55:26.000 these things
00:55:26.460 conservatives
00:55:27.040 believe are
00:55:28.040 true.
00:55:28.780 Because you
00:55:29.300 would never
00:55:29.640 hear the
00:55:29.960 counterpoint.
00:55:31.020 So I will
00:55:31.440 be the
00:55:31.860 counterpoint.
00:55:33.240 And I will
00:55:33.760 put that out
00:55:34.460 there and then
00:55:34.980 I'm going to
00:55:35.280 let you respond
00:55:35.960 to it.
00:55:36.880 Because I
00:55:37.260 don't think I'm
00:55:37.820 necessarily going
00:55:38.400 to get everything
00:55:38.920 right and there
00:55:39.660 might be some
00:55:40.120 context I should
00:55:41.000 add, etc.
00:55:42.000 So I'll do
00:55:42.660 that.
00:55:43.280 I'll put it out
00:55:43.820 once.
00:55:44.300 It will make
00:55:44.660 everybody mad.
00:55:45.720 Everybody is a
00:55:46.380 conservative.
00:55:46.760 You all get
00:55:47.320 mad.
00:55:48.040 Then you'll
00:55:48.660 tell me what
00:55:49.100 I got wrong.
00:55:50.220 And then I'll
00:55:50.800 revise it and
00:55:51.600 see how close I
00:55:52.340 can get to
00:55:53.020 something useful.
00:55:54.760 Now, the
00:55:56.480 reason I'm
00:55:56.860 doing this is
00:55:57.420 that a lot of
00:55:58.220 people, especially
00:55:59.440 privately on
00:56:00.580 Twitter, have
00:56:01.720 asked me
00:56:02.300 questions or
00:56:02.980 made points that
00:56:04.880 I shake my
00:56:05.600 head and say,
00:56:06.440 how can you be
00:56:07.520 even asking that
00:56:08.440 question in
00:56:10.160 2021?
00:56:11.700 There are
00:56:12.900 things that I
00:56:13.420 thought had been
00:56:14.260 answered months and
00:56:15.260 months ago to
00:56:16.140 everyone's general
00:56:17.780 understanding, and
00:56:18.860 yet the information
00:56:20.200 is not getting
00:56:21.620 where it needs to
00:56:22.320 get, so I'm
00:56:22.860 going to try to
00:56:23.280 fix that.
00:56:24.600 Somebody says,
00:56:25.300 please, no
00:56:25.900 lists.
00:56:27.460 Well, sometimes
00:56:28.620 you need a
00:56:29.120 list.
00:56:32.860 Somebody says,
00:56:33.640 I know about
00:56:34.220 COVID.
00:56:34.780 I think we
00:56:35.440 all do.
00:56:37.060 You're going to
00:56:37.620 be surprised.
00:56:39.860 You're going to
00:56:40.460 be really
00:56:40.940 surprised.
00:56:41.520 There are some
00:56:42.400 basic, basic
00:56:43.400 things that
00:56:45.020 the vast
00:56:46.600 majority of
00:56:47.440 conservatives, as
00:56:48.200 far as I can
00:56:48.760 tell, are not
00:56:49.880 aware of and
00:56:50.600 have never heard
00:56:51.320 even once.
00:56:52.680 Things you've
00:56:53.320 never heard even
00:56:54.340 once that are
00:56:56.140 common knowledge
00:56:56.900 about the
00:56:57.460 pandemic.
00:57:00.900 Well, the
00:57:01.640 argument will be
00:57:02.580 a series of
00:57:03.500 points.
00:57:05.060 And if you
00:57:06.020 would like to
00:57:06.540 use my own
00:57:07.440 technique against
00:57:08.700 me, then you
00:57:10.300 should do this.
00:57:11.280 Pick out my
00:57:12.080 strongest point
00:57:12.980 when I make
00:57:14.200 them, and
00:57:15.420 debunk it.
00:57:17.500 Because if you
00:57:18.200 can debunk my
00:57:19.300 strongest point,
00:57:21.540 that could tell
00:57:22.820 me that my
00:57:23.320 other points are
00:57:23.880 not so strong.
00:57:27.340 Because you're
00:57:28.100 in California,
00:57:28.860 it doesn't mean
00:57:29.440 you know
00:57:29.840 everything about
00:57:30.580 COVID.
00:57:31.460 Well, remember,
00:57:32.620 I just told
00:57:33.340 you that I
00:57:34.940 don't know
00:57:35.400 everything about
00:57:36.100 COVID.
00:57:36.720 Did you hear
00:57:37.240 that part?
00:57:38.300 I was pretty
00:57:38.980 clear about that.
00:57:40.240 Because I told
00:57:40.940 you I'm going to
00:57:41.520 present it once,
00:57:42.560 I'm going to
00:57:43.120 get your
00:57:43.420 feedback, and
00:57:44.740 then I'm going
00:57:45.180 to correct
00:57:45.680 whatever I
00:57:46.200 got wrong.
00:57:47.260 So that is
00:57:48.040 me telling you
00:57:48.840 in the clearest
00:57:49.560 possible way
00:57:50.440 that I don't
00:57:51.200 believe I
00:57:52.360 have the
00:57:53.180 great final
00:57:54.120 knowledge about
00:57:54.780 COVID.
00:57:55.680 It is just
00:57:56.380 very clear to
00:57:57.180 me that I
00:57:57.680 know way
00:57:58.320 more than
00:57:59.520 the average
00:58:00.120 consumer.
00:58:00.820 Way more.
00:58:01.360 Not even
00:58:01.640 close.
00:58:03.380 We'll test
00:58:04.060 that.
00:58:05.180 What if I'm
00:58:05.780 wrong?
00:58:06.580 What if I'm
00:58:07.320 the one who
00:58:07.800 is wrong?
00:58:08.640 And then when
00:58:09.260 you correct me,
00:58:10.880 I see, oh,
00:58:11.680 man, I got a
00:58:12.180 lot wrong.
00:58:12.560 It could
00:58:13.120 happen, which
00:58:14.500 would be
00:58:14.740 interesting.
00:58:18.480 All right.
00:58:21.320 Live virus found
00:58:22.940 with electron
00:58:23.500 microscope
00:58:23.980 examination of
00:58:25.340 allele walls,
00:58:26.440 biopsies, and
00:58:27.280 long haulers.
00:58:29.040 Yeah, the
00:58:29.680 long haulers is
00:58:30.820 something that
00:58:31.540 people don't
00:58:32.620 understand.
00:58:33.360 They don't
00:58:33.700 understand the
00:58:34.240 virus travels on
00:58:35.200 water particles.
00:58:36.580 They don't
00:58:37.080 understand friction.
00:58:38.700 They don't
00:58:39.300 understand a lot
00:58:40.520 of stuff.
00:58:42.160 Lincoln Project
00:58:43.260 and Weaver.
00:58:45.460 Well, watching
00:58:46.340 the Lincoln
00:58:46.820 Project self-immolate
00:58:48.900 because one of
00:58:49.740 their founders
00:58:50.400 had some
00:58:52.500 sexual, alleged
00:58:53.640 sexual
00:58:54.300 improprieties
00:58:55.300 or messages
00:58:57.200 with some
00:58:57.900 young males.
00:58:58.640 liberals, and
00:59:00.100 I would say the
00:59:02.480 same thing for
00:59:03.200 the Lincoln
00:59:03.660 Project that I
00:59:04.580 would say for
00:59:05.060 everybody else.
00:59:05.800 Your worst
00:59:07.000 members do not
00:59:08.300 represent your
00:59:09.120 group, right?
00:59:10.460 Your worst
00:59:11.200 members do not
00:59:12.300 represent the
00:59:12.980 group.
00:59:13.580 It's true for the
00:59:14.380 Lincoln Project.
00:59:15.300 It's true for
00:59:15.940 Republicans.
00:59:16.960 It's true for
00:59:17.420 Democrats.
00:59:18.240 But because the
00:59:20.080 Lincoln Project
00:59:20.680 was all about
00:59:22.000 making Republicans
00:59:23.760 look like the
00:59:24.640 worst of the
00:59:25.200 Republicans, it
00:59:26.760 is fair in
00:59:27.640 their case.
00:59:28.940 In this special
00:59:30.600 case where their
00:59:32.100 primary brand was
00:59:33.680 to do the very
00:59:34.420 thing that is
00:59:36.880 being pushed back
00:59:37.820 on them, I
00:59:39.020 think it's fair in
00:59:39.840 this case.
00:59:40.960 But in general,
00:59:42.000 it's not a
00:59:42.560 reasonable thing
00:59:44.420 to do.
00:59:49.460 And by the way,
00:59:50.440 they all look like
00:59:51.140 bad versions of
00:59:52.120 Rick Wilson.
00:59:53.180 If you're going to
00:59:53.920 clone yourself, or
00:59:55.220 if you're going to
00:59:55.700 clone anything,
00:59:56.760 don't start with
00:59:57.920 Rick Wilson.
00:59:59.640 That's just my
01:00:01.140 ethical advice for
01:00:02.680 anybody who's going
01:00:03.320 to clone.
01:00:04.540 Find someone else
01:00:06.420 to clone.
01:00:08.120 Don't clone Rick
01:00:09.920 Wilson.
01:00:10.940 You know who else
01:00:11.820 you should not
01:00:12.400 clone?
01:00:12.860 I'll give you some
01:00:13.360 ideas.
01:00:15.300 Adam Schiff.
01:00:16.680 If you're making
01:00:17.800 a list of who to
01:00:19.180 clone first, don't
01:00:21.560 put Adam Schiff at
01:00:22.680 the top of the
01:00:23.340 list.
01:00:23.640 Eric Swalwell, don't
01:00:27.480 clone him.
01:00:28.600 Do not clone Eric
01:00:30.680 Swalwell.
01:00:31.700 Jeffrey Epstein, nope.
01:00:34.600 Nope.
01:00:35.300 Harvey Weinstein, do
01:00:36.560 not clone him.
01:00:38.480 Do not clone Harvey
01:00:39.880 Weinstein.
01:00:42.300 I'm sure there's some
01:00:43.560 Democrats to put on,
01:00:45.360 or some Republicans to
01:00:46.480 put on the list.
01:00:47.720 Nadler, do not clone
01:00:49.260 Nadler.
01:00:49.800 do not clone him.
01:00:53.160 Bad idea.
01:00:54.800 Nancy Pelosi, you
01:00:55.660 could clone.
01:00:56.640 She seems pretty
01:00:57.400 cool.
01:00:58.500 You could clone her.
01:01:00.360 You know, I don't
01:01:01.020 agree with Nancy
01:01:01.740 Pelosi on a lot of
01:01:02.600 things, but at least
01:01:03.200 she's a, you know,
01:01:05.040 functioning human.
01:01:08.140 So you could clone
01:01:09.140 her, even if I don't
01:01:10.780 agree with her.
01:01:13.480 AOC, you could clone.
01:01:15.580 You're saying don't
01:01:16.540 clone AOC.
01:01:17.900 But yeah, sure, clone
01:01:18.980 AOC.
01:01:19.880 I think AOC is more
01:01:23.260 of a national asset
01:01:24.520 than you do.
01:01:26.620 And while I don't
01:01:28.200 agree with her
01:01:28.840 policies, in all
01:01:31.040 cases, I do think
01:01:33.000 she wants what's
01:01:33.800 best for the country.
01:01:34.760 And she does have
01:01:35.500 skill.
01:01:36.360 And maybe, maybe
01:01:37.680 there's a way to,
01:01:38.920 you know, help move
01:01:40.000 that energy in the
01:01:40.940 right direction.
01:01:42.520 So I tend not to
01:01:44.000 be hard on people
01:01:45.480 who have skills and
01:01:47.320 can move the
01:01:48.760 country in a
01:01:49.320 direction and have
01:01:50.520 good intentions.
01:01:51.600 That's what I thought
01:01:52.320 about Trump as well.
01:01:53.880 I think Trump's
01:01:54.580 intentions were good.
01:01:55.860 His skill was high.
01:01:57.220 That's something you
01:01:57.800 can work with.
01:01:59.480 I think AOC is the
01:02:00.480 same.
01:02:01.860 All right.
01:02:04.640 McConnell and
01:02:05.380 Romney.
01:02:06.000 Yeah.
01:02:06.200 Well, I'm just
01:02:10.540 saying that you
01:02:11.140 could disagree with
01:02:12.040 everything that
01:02:12.760 Pelosi wants and
01:02:15.360 says politically,
01:02:16.500 but she's still like
01:02:17.780 a, you know, a
01:02:18.920 normal human being.
01:02:20.440 You know, I
01:02:20.800 wouldn't say don't
01:02:21.920 clone her.
01:02:24.740 All right.
01:02:25.400 That's all I got
01:02:25.960 for now.
01:02:26.420 And I'll talk to
01:02:27.040 you tomorrow.
01:02:30.980 All right,
01:02:31.580 YouTubers.
01:02:32.940 Don't clone
01:02:33.720 Yoko.
01:02:38.300 Don't clone
01:02:39.040 Yoko.
01:02:40.360 That's like a
01:02:41.200 blast from the
01:02:41.840 past.
01:02:46.160 Do you disagree
01:02:49.340 with AOC?
01:02:50.960 If you're an
01:02:51.680 ultra liberal, what
01:02:53.860 do you disagree on
01:02:55.020 with AOC?
01:02:56.260 Well, I always
01:02:56.920 say that I'm left
01:02:57.640 to Bernie, but
01:02:58.380 better at math.
01:03:00.180 And that gets to
01:03:01.300 the Green New
01:03:02.600 Deal stuff.
01:03:03.700 The Green New
01:03:04.380 Deal stuff just
01:03:06.540 doesn't work math
01:03:08.480 wise.
01:03:09.120 If it did, I'd
01:03:10.300 be in favor of
01:03:10.840 it.
01:03:11.280 And generally
01:03:11.800 speaking, anything
01:03:12.620 that understands
01:03:14.080 human motivation,
01:03:16.460 I tend to
01:03:17.740 appreciate those
01:03:18.800 systems.
01:03:19.660 But any system
01:03:20.600 that ignores the
01:03:21.960 obvious impacts of
01:03:23.080 human motivation,
01:03:24.780 that's where I
01:03:26.180 would disagree with
01:03:26.960 AOC.
01:03:28.220 So I wouldn't
01:03:29.040 mind getting to
01:03:29.880 the same place she
01:03:30.660 would like to get
01:03:31.300 to, which is
01:03:32.020 poor people have
01:03:32.920 a lot more.
01:03:34.080 Wouldn't that be
01:03:34.600 great?
01:03:35.160 Every poor person
01:03:35.960 gets a good
01:03:36.440 education in
01:03:37.280 health care.
01:03:38.440 I want to get
01:03:39.360 there, just like
01:03:40.800 Bernie does, just
01:03:41.660 like AOC does.
01:03:42.900 But their method
01:03:43.660 to get there
01:03:44.360 lacks some
01:03:47.080 structure.
01:03:49.520 All right.
01:03:51.960 Where's
01:03:52.600 Parler?
01:03:53.500 Well, did you
01:03:53.820 hear the CEO of
01:03:54.740 Parler got removed
01:03:56.340 by the board?
01:03:57.660 Interestingly.
01:03:58.100 Somebody says,
01:04:02.960 list audit of
01:04:03.740 how COVID deaths
01:04:05.120 are counted.
01:04:06.380 Yeah, that would
01:04:07.160 be useful.
01:04:08.060 At some point,
01:04:08.900 there should be
01:04:09.440 some kind of an
01:04:10.260 audit of how
01:04:12.040 we counted
01:04:12.660 deaths.
01:04:13.560 But now that
01:04:14.460 we're around
01:04:14.980 half a million
01:04:15.680 deaths, I think
01:04:17.100 we'll be hitting
01:04:17.680 over half a million
01:04:18.580 pretty soon.
01:04:19.820 I don't think
01:04:20.780 that the argument
01:04:21.480 that the deaths
01:04:22.180 are not real
01:04:23.060 is just crazy
01:04:25.920 at this point.
01:04:26.540 You know, there
01:04:27.900 was a point
01:04:28.500 where a
01:04:29.080 reasonable person
01:04:30.000 could have
01:04:30.360 said, you
01:04:30.820 know, I
01:04:31.200 don't think
01:04:31.560 these deaths
01:04:32.100 will be over
01:04:32.740 100,000 or
01:04:34.680 over 200,000
01:04:35.920 and therefore
01:04:36.560 we should treat
01:04:37.300 it like that's
01:04:38.080 the maximum
01:04:38.700 size of the
01:04:39.440 problem.
01:04:39.900 There was a
01:04:40.320 time when a
01:04:41.840 reasonable person
01:04:42.660 could say that
01:04:43.500 and did.
01:04:44.700 But I think
01:04:45.480 we're well past
01:04:46.140 the point where
01:04:46.960 you can say
01:04:47.500 that COVID
01:04:48.160 isn't real.
01:04:49.560 If you're still
01:04:50.400 saying that,
01:04:51.660 I think you
01:04:52.440 need to catch
01:04:52.980 up.
01:04:53.280 All right.
01:04:57.020 Did I give
01:04:57.700 up on net
01:04:58.560 deaths?
01:04:59.740 So early on,
01:05:00.900 I made a
01:05:01.620 prediction that
01:05:02.900 we might have
01:05:04.780 fewer net
01:05:06.640 deaths because
01:05:08.400 of the lockdown
01:05:09.000 because we
01:05:10.940 would save a
01:05:11.860 number of lives
01:05:12.580 in different
01:05:13.020 ways than we
01:05:13.900 would lose.
01:05:15.200 But that
01:05:16.180 prediction was
01:05:16.960 based on a
01:05:17.760 faulty assumption
01:05:18.560 that the
01:05:19.420 lockdowns would
01:05:20.200 be limited in
01:05:21.280 length.
01:05:21.760 If you have
01:05:22.900 a two-month
01:05:23.520 lockdown,
01:05:25.040 I think you
01:05:25.800 probably have
01:05:26.300 net negative
01:05:27.700 deaths or
01:05:28.840 net fewer
01:05:29.840 deaths than
01:05:30.340 before.
01:05:31.200 If you have
01:05:32.160 a one-year
01:05:33.040 lockdown,
01:05:34.400 then I think
01:05:34.980 the equation
01:05:35.540 changes because
01:05:36.440 the lockdown
01:05:36.980 itself is going
01:05:38.360 to start to
01:05:38.860 wear on people.
01:05:39.880 You get the
01:05:40.480 extra suicides,
01:05:42.000 everything.
01:05:43.440 Right?
01:05:44.060 So I think it's
01:05:45.240 how long you're
01:05:46.240 locked down.
01:05:47.120 A two-month
01:05:47.620 lockdown, I would
01:05:48.600 still go with
01:05:49.320 probably would
01:05:50.340 reduce the
01:05:51.440 net number
01:05:52.480 of deaths.
01:05:54.020 But a one-year
01:05:54.900 with a pandemic
01:05:56.140 that's lasted
01:05:56.860 that whole time,
01:05:58.760 I don't know
01:05:59.400 that that's
01:05:59.820 going to be
01:06:00.100 net.
01:06:00.480 It could be,
01:06:01.440 but I'm not
01:06:02.040 as confident.
01:06:04.180 All right,
01:06:04.680 that's it for
01:06:05.140 now.
01:06:05.540 I'll talk to
01:06:05.940 you later.
01:06:06.200 Bye-bye.
01:06:19.740 Bye.
01:06:20.500 Bye.
01:06:21.100 Bye.
01:06:22.080 Bye.
01:06:24.320 Bye.
01:06:25.200 Bye.
01:06:26.360 Bye.
01:06:26.720 Bye.
01:06:27.280 Bye.
01:06:27.440 Bye.
01:06:27.740 Bye.
01:06:28.000 Bye.
01:06:28.360 Bye.
01:06:29.120 Bye.