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
Summary
What would happen if there was a show hosted by a former president of the United States? What if that show was called "Would You, Would You?" and it was hosted by someone other than Joe Biden? What would that show be like?
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,
00:12:27.520
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.
00:18:46.100
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.
00:19:04.040
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.
00:22:26.060
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,
00:36:28.300
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.
00:36:40.640
let's say you believe that climate change is real and it's a problem.
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.
00:37:07.760
that he's flying a private jet while complaining about using too much fuel,
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,
00:38:09.260
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?
00:38:29.840
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?
00:38:51.480
if transgender athletes were dominating their sports.
00:38:56.520
Who else would be in the same boat as all of those women
00:39:14.580
Why is it fair that I can't win any awards for sports?
00:39:20.960
but Scott, you're a senior citizen practically.
00:39:55.300
can't win awards and get scholarships to college?
00:40:26.600
would have ordinarily maybe been winning something,
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.
00:41:03.420
I mean, why is one unfair and the other one isn't?
00:41:38.400
you're kind of closed out from a lot of sports.