Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1278 Scott Adams： My Impeachment Trial Starts Today, and Let's Talk About Biden's Huge Failures So Far

00:00:00.000 Everybody, gather round. Today's the big day, or one of the big days. Yeah, this is the beginning

00:00:09.040 of my impeachment trial. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but it looks like I'm getting

00:00:15.800 impeached. Now, it looks like they're impeaching, at least on paper, looks like they're going to

00:00:22.140 impeach ex-president Trump. But I think you know what this is really about, don't you? We'll talk

00:00:28.960 all about it in a minute. But after the simultaneous sip, the best part of the day. Come on, can you

00:00:37.140 feel the tingle, the excitement? You know it's coming. It's coming. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a

00:00:44.820 glass of tank or chalice or sign. I can't eat a jug or flask or vessel of any kind. I like coffee.

00:00:50.820 Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes

00:00:54.700 everything better. Everything. It's called the simultaneous sip. And if you haven't tried it,

00:01:00.920 oh, I feel sorry for you. Wow. What you have missed so far. But you can get in on this now.

00:01:08.940 Get in on the non-ground floor. Go.

00:01:12.200 Yeah, you thought I was kidding, but it was just as good as you thought it would be.

00:01:20.780 Maybe better. All right, let's talk about all the things. Do you remember, those of you who've been

00:01:29.480 watching me a while, do you remember that I was just complaining like crazy over the summer and

00:01:36.920 following months about the fact that the Trump administration was not pursuing these rapid

00:01:43.880 testing techniques. And there seemed to be some administrative problem or something. But if you

00:01:51.660 remember my criticism, it was kind of specific. And I said, the weird thing is that they don't even say

00:01:59.520 why they're not doing it. How could it be that this technique of the rapid testing, if you don't

00:02:07.040 know about it, it's using low cost, really cheap tests that aren't as accurate. But if you do lots

00:02:13.720 of them because they're cheap, you get a better result than if you have just a few tests, relatively

00:02:19.460 speaking, that are high quality. Because you can't test many people with the high quality stuff.

00:02:24.200 So lower quality testing lots of people, the way the math works is that you would crush the virus

00:02:31.300 if you did that. Now, would anything get through undiagnosed? Yeah. Yeah, that's the whole point

00:02:40.620 about them being a little bit lower quality. But they would get all of the super spreaders.

00:02:46.240 Anybody who had a lot of virus in them, the ones you have to worry about, the test would probably be

00:02:51.340 sensitive enough for those. It would only miss the people who probably weren't spreading anyway,

00:02:55.820 because they didn't have much shedding. That's the way I understand it anyway. So my complaint was,

00:03:02.080 not that we weren't doing it, which is a big question, right? Like, why aren't we doing it?

00:03:09.680 But why wouldn't they even address it? It was like it didn't exist. There were these people on social

00:03:16.140 media, you know, Michael Mina, especially, who, and myself. So there were enough people talking about

00:03:23.980 it. Clearly, it was a big topic. But it was like it would just go into this black hole of the Trump

00:03:31.900 administration and just, you didn't hear about it again. So I wondered what that was all about. And

00:03:38.680 maybe we have a hint now. Andres Bakos tweeted this this morning. He said, apparently, there's a story

00:03:48.400 out now that when Jared Kushner and whoever else was on the task force was asking, I guess it was

00:03:57.580 Collins out of the NIH for information about testing to, you know, try to get a better testing thing

00:04:04.360 going. And this is almost, this will sound like a joke. This will sound like I just made this up

00:04:13.240 because I'm the guy who creates the Dilbert cartoon. So you're going to think it just sounds

00:04:18.660 like a Dilbert cartoon. The guy who was ahead of all the testing in the NIH decided, and this is from

00:04:26.720 himself, he's actually saying this now, that he didn't want to draw much attention. So he gave such a

00:04:32.420 technical, nerdy description of, you know, the situation that it made it impossible to deal with

00:04:39.140 him. What? Isn't that exactly what it looked like from the outside? Keep in mind that I would be

00:04:50.280 probably considered one of the foremost observers of bureaucracies. You know, I've been doing the

00:04:58.220 Dilbert cartoon, which is about corporate bureaucracies for 30 years. I know what a bureaucracy

00:05:04.940 does. I know how they act. And when I was looking at this whole, why aren't we getting any kind of a

00:05:11.460 yes, no, or this is what you should know about this rapid testing stuff, I could smell something wrong

00:05:19.680 there. And I was, I was telling you this months ago, I just smell something wrong. And it looks like

00:05:25.560 it's probably in the guts of the machine, not necessarily something that was a problem with Trump. It was like

00:05:32.240 the machine wasn't working. And now we know why. He literally, that this guy literally was stonewalling his

00:05:40.900 bosses, and making it impossible to deal with them. Intentionally, and he's telling you this right now. So this is

00:05:49.340 what Andres said about it. He said, so the US didn't put more money into the development of new and

00:05:54.800 expanded COVID testing, because the head of the NIH didn't want it to catch the attention of the White

00:06:00.900 House. So he intentionally sabotaged the communication, question mark. Because that's what it looks like,

00:06:08.220 he said. That's exactly what it looks like. Wow. So I'll say this again, that doesn't mean that the,

00:06:20.040 you know, that Trump gets a pass on this. It's his administration, right? But if Biden fixes this,

00:06:26.960 and it looks like he might, that's a pretty big deal. Pretty big deal. So I hope he does fix it.

00:06:33.760 Um, I tweeted this. What do you make of the fact that Biden is going to fire pretty much everybody

00:06:42.260 in the, uh, all the attorneys in the DOJ? He's going to fire all of the attorneys that work for

00:06:50.700 the DOJ, except to his credit, he's not going to get rid of the, um, not going to get rid of the

00:06:58.580 guys looking into the Russia collusion beginnings or the Hunter Biden situation. So he is. So I would

00:07:06.260 consider that an ethical, an ethical way to go. So I'll give Biden credit for not getting rid of

00:07:14.780 those two things that he probably would prefer getting rid of. So credit where credit is due.

00:07:21.220 But here's my question. Apparently it's fairly traditional to get rid of the attorneys in the

00:07:28.700 Department of Justice when a new administration comes in from the other party. But what does that

00:07:34.200 tell you about the Department of Justice? If, if the attorneys working at the Department of Justice

00:07:41.840 are not perfectly sufficient for any kind of administration that takes power,

00:07:48.260 isn't the administration telling us not to trust them? How else, how else could you interpret

00:07:55.300 that? Why would you trust Department of Justice lawyers more than the next administration will

00:08:03.000 trust them? Because the next administration is going to fire them every time. And why are they

00:08:08.900 going to fire them? Because they don't trust them. Why else? They don't trust them to do their

00:08:17.780 bidding. Think about that. If our own government doesn't trust the lawyers in our own Department

00:08:27.140 of Justice, why should you trust them? I mean, it's basically a, a very clear statement that you

00:08:35.080 should not trust your own government. How else can you interpret that? Seriously, how else can you

00:08:41.560 interpret that? Other than you can't trust your own government? They're, they're telling us this is

00:08:47.520 pretty direct. If you can't trust the Department of Justice lawyers, you can't trust the government.

00:08:56.380 And we already knew about Congress.

00:08:58.260 And it's weird that as far as I know, I'm the only person who's ever brought that up.

00:09:07.820 Have you heard anybody else mention that? Wouldn't you think that would be the biggest story in the

00:09:13.700 world? That we can't trust our own government, so we have to fire them when the new administration

00:09:18.880 comes in? These are people who, in theory, were not political. In theory, they were supposed to just

00:09:26.180 be following the law. But apparently our own leaders don't think they'd do that. Otherwise,

00:09:30.980 they would keep them, keep the experienced people. So if you're looking to see who might emerge as

00:09:38.800 the GOP frontrunner to lead the party in the future, I would say that Tom Cotton is continuing to

00:09:48.940 stand out. He's called out a few failures of the Trump administration that I will call out as well.

00:09:57.480 So this is what Tom Cotton said in a tweet. He said the, talking about Yemen, he says,

00:10:02.100 the Houthis are armed and trained by Iran's overseas terror corporations, terror corps, the IRGC and

00:10:09.680 Hezbollah. So he's talking about Biden's decision to remove their terrorist designation

00:10:15.180 is repeating the errors of the Obama administration, appeasing Iran, blah, blah, blah. Now, doesn't

00:10:23.780 that seem like a pretty reasonable tweet? Why is it that we're deciding not to call a group that's

00:10:31.560 being trained and armed by Iran's terrorist wing, and we're not going to call them terrorists?

00:10:39.500 I don't know the details of this situation, but it seems like a Biden mistake, but you'll probably

00:10:46.660 never hear anything about it except this tweet. And then Tom Cotton on a different subject said that

00:10:53.480 notes that more than 80,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses last year. And the Biden

00:11:00.100 administration, as part of its immigration changes, said that it won't be deporting illegal alien

00:11:06.960 cartel members who deal fentanyl and heroin, because it's not a priority anymore. So it's not a priority

00:11:14.760 to deport cartel dealers of fentanyl and heroin who are behind 80,000 American drug overdose deaths a

00:11:24.360 year. That is a mistake. Right? Tom Cotton called it out. I didn't see anybody else call it out.

00:11:33.360 If I had to pick a leader of the Republican Party today, it would be him, because he's calling out

00:11:40.240 high, high important things that I don't see anywhere else.

00:11:48.880 So here's a question for you. Can somebody give me a fact check on this? Okay. So I've been making

00:11:55.140 the claim that we've never done a full audit of our election system from end to end, where you could

00:12:03.840 see every vote and how it got to the final tally, and you could know that nothing happened with hacking

00:12:11.220 and any kind of mischief. But the counterpoint to me has been this, and I would like you to fact check

00:12:18.580 this. The counterpoint is this. There have been recounts. So in Georgia, for example, there was at

00:12:26.760 least in one county, I guess, a recount. And in other places. If you were to do selected, and here's the

00:12:35.280 keyword, selected recounts, in places where you thought there might be an issue or places that were

00:12:41.920 close. If you only did selected recounts, and you matched the physical ballots to whatever the

00:12:49.380 machine said in that precinct, I guess, and you knew that the paper ballots and the digital count

00:12:57.140 were roughly the same, you know, give or take two or three votes usually, would you say that you have

00:13:04.420 now done at least a representative enough, it wouldn't be an actual, you know, random selection, but it

00:13:12.640 would be better than that. Because you would be targeting the ones that you suspected are highly likely to

00:13:17.940 have some mischief if there's going to be any. So if you did target them, and you did match the the physical

00:13:26.000 ballots with the count for just that area, would that be enough of a representative sampling? Because

00:13:34.040 you're, you know, it's not really representative, but you know what I mean, better than representative,

00:13:38.600 because they're looking for places that might have trouble. Would that give you a full check all the

00:13:44.180 way to the final vote? And so I see some no's, and I see some yes's. Why don't we know that?

00:13:54.580 Shouldn't we as a public know the answer to that question? Because if the answer is yes,

00:13:59.980 that that that's really all you need to know. And if it's true that those likely problem areas

00:14:07.580 were recounted, and that count got all the way to the final count,

00:14:14.160 that would make me feel very comfortable that you had, wait for it, an unhackable system.

00:14:22.380 To me, that would be unhackable. Because as long as somebody could, you know, reasonably

00:14:30.840 request a recount in places that were maybe problematic, I feel like that would catch any

00:14:38.140 serious mischief. I mean, they'd have to be really clever. But if you don't do it in the key areas

00:14:45.180 where, you know, the electoral college makes a big difference, if you're not doing it in those areas,

00:14:49.660 it's probably doesn't matter if you're doing it anyway. So let me see. All right. So somebody's

00:15:00.860 mentioning mail-in ballots, but I think they would be part of a recount. You would just recount the

00:15:06.840 mail-in ballots with the other ballots. If it's paper ballots without the digital part,

00:15:14.780 there's still a place where you enter it into the digital system. So nothing is ever non-digitized

00:15:23.300 in the end. Somebody says you're simply verifying the machines. But so let me be a little more clear.

00:15:35.080 A recount would not catch any mischief that happened with the ballots themselves. Because if they got

00:15:44.320 counted once, they would just be counted again. So it wouldn't catch that kind of fraud. But my specific

00:15:51.080 question is, I guess I should be more clear about that, is would it catch any possible hacking or

00:15:57.420 software problem? Would it be enough to catch all of that, even if it didn't catch anything that

00:16:04.160 happened with physical ballots, hypothetically? Can somebody tweet me something that would answer

00:16:10.040 that question? Because don't you think that's a really important question? How comfortable would

00:16:15.480 you be if you thought that those, you know, few recounts did actually get traced all the way through

00:16:23.740 the digital system to the end? I would feel a lot more comfortable. And I would think it would be

00:16:29.640 hard to cheat with software if we had done even those limited audits. That's what I would think.

00:16:36.480 So somebody cleared me up on that. I figured that's a gigantic question. And I should know the answer

00:16:41.380 to it. And so should you. This week, it looks like Congress isn't even going to pretend to serve the

00:16:48.840 public. And it's amazing that we let them get away with that. It's just amazing. And does anybody

00:16:56.120 really think the public will be served in any way by the other business of the Congress being

00:17:01.400 postponed, such as the stimulus package? It seems pretty important. But they're not even pretending.

00:17:11.540 They're just not even pretending to do the people's work. This is so clearly political,

00:17:16.960 meaning that they're trying to prevent, you know, Trump from being, what, running again,

00:17:22.260 I guess, that it's just laughably, blatantly incompetent in terms of doing the job you were

00:17:29.900 hired to, you know, or elected to do. It's just amazing that we let them get away with this. Amazing.

00:17:38.420 But I'd like to, I'm going to talk about the Capitol riot a little bit. And I'll need to do a special

00:17:46.540 aside for dumb people. Most of you watching this have normal or above normal intelligence. But just 0.99

00:17:54.680 in case anybody snuck in, I need to do a special service announcement for the dumb people, if there 0.99

00:18:01.460 are any. I know this is a smart audience. But if you wouldn't mind, if you have average or above 0.98

00:18:07.280 average intelligence, if you could just hold on for a minute, because I want to make a message directly 0.99

00:18:12.760 to the dumb people. Here, we'll turn the camera a little bit this way. Okay. All right. So smart 0.99

00:18:19.760 people, just talk among yourselves. This is just for the dumb people. All right, dumb people. When you 1.00

00:18:25.480 hear me talking about the Capitol riots, and I talk in terms of the president not inciting violence,

00:18:32.740 what wouldn't make sense for you to say is that there are victims. What about the people who died?

00:18:41.280 And see, this is what the dumb people don't understand that the people who are talking among 0.99

00:18:46.200 themselves probably get. People like me, who have normal or above normal intelligence, 0.99

00:18:54.280 automatically think the victims of every situation matter. I know, weird, right? We automatically

00:19:03.540 assume that's important. We automatically have empathy for the families and for anybody who was

00:19:10.460 injured or killed. Every time. Now, you're probably thinking, well, not every time, right? No, actually,

00:19:17.820 surprisingly, every time. You won't even find an exception. Every single time anybody dies,

00:19:26.900 I sort of wish it hadn't happened, you know, with maybe some exceptions of serial killers and dictators

00:19:33.060 and stuff like that. But generally speaking, dumb people, and we'll get back to the smart people in a 0.99

00:19:37.840 minute. But for the dumb, we always consider that. I know, it's surprising. All right, I just wanted to 1.00

00:19:47.560 set you up with that, so that you don't get worked up about anything else I say about the impeachment or the

00:19:53.600 Capitol situation. Are we good? Dumb people? All right, we're gonna get back. I'm gonna talk to the smart people

00:19:59.120 again. So I hope we're good on that, all right? All right, smart people, I'm back. I hope you had a nice

00:20:11.100 break there. I think the dumb people are on board now, and now we can talk about the topic. 0.97

00:20:15.640 So everybody knows that, I hope you know that, there are not many people who say that President Trump 0.99

00:20:27.320 handled the Capitol riot, assault, whatever you want to call it, well. Is there anybody making that case?

00:20:36.060 Because Democrats will argue with me that somehow I'm defending the way he handled it. I'm not

00:20:43.540 defending the way he handled it. I think he should be criticized for the way he handled it. Now,

00:20:48.600 whether you impeach him or not is, you know, whether you want to be silly and do something absurd and 0.97

00:20:53.520 useless and unproductive for the country. That's a different question. But did he handle it right? 0.97

00:20:59.020 No, I think that he could have done more as it was unfolding. He could have just probably ended it

00:21:06.380 with a tweet. And I think he should have done that. But the specific question of whether using the

00:21:12.820 words, you know, fight for whatever, a transparent election or calling for a peaceful protest,

00:21:22.500 whether that is inciting violence among the people who have Viking hats and plastic ties,

00:21:29.180 that's kind of a stretch. That's kind of a stretch. But we're going to endure this anyway.

00:21:35.760 And it appears now that you can be punished in this country, at least in the United States,

00:21:42.960 probably in other countries too. You can be punished for other people's absurd interpretations

00:21:49.420 of your opinions. So it used to be that you would get punished for things that you did,

00:21:55.960 things that you said, maybe your actual opinion. But we're not in those days anymore.

00:22:01.200 Now you will be punished in a variety of ways for other people's absurd interpretation of what you

00:22:08.620 meant. And you can be punished by a social media ban, cancellation, impeachment, boycott,

00:22:16.540 and loss of job for other people's misinterpretation of what you said.

00:22:22.420 Now, I was asked by some people if I could do a micro lesson. I'm doing little micro lessons in

00:22:29.480 the Locals platform, Locals.com. It's a subscription service. So I've got a whole bunch of lessons and

00:22:36.720 little two minute videos of things to make you more effective. And people ask me, Scott, how do we

00:22:43.220 identify a conspiracy theory or fake news? You know, how do you identify it? How do you know what's fake

00:22:50.480 and what's real? And I'm going to give you a little mini lesson on that now. Here's how to tell what is

00:22:58.060 fake and what is real. If somebody tells you that the President of the United States went on TV and

00:23:06.940 praised in direct language, neo-Nazis as fine people, how do you know that didn't happen?

00:23:15.180 Or do you think it did happen? Here's how you know it did not happen.

00:23:24.920 That didn't fucking happen. 0.95

00:23:28.520 You don't really have to overthink that. How do you know that the President of the United States, 0.97

00:23:34.020 any President, including Trump, how do you know that they didn't go on TV and praise neo-Nazis in

00:23:41.340 direct language and called them fine people? How do you know that didn't happen? Because nothing

00:23:46.080 like that would ever fucking happen. In no universe would that ever fucking happen. 0.99

00:23:52.660 Well, let's do another one. CNN has said a number of times that President Trump suggested drinking 0.99

00:23:59.980 bleach as a possible solution for coronavirus. Now, how do you know, and other reporting says

00:24:09.560 injecting disinfectants, which they interpret to mean household cleaners? How do you know the

00:24:16.560 President of the United States didn't go on live TV and suggest drinking bleach or injecting household

00:24:26.180 cleaners into your body to fight a virus? How do you know that didn't happen? Or do you think it did?

00:24:32.840 Let me tell you how to know it didn't happen. That didn't fucking happen. That's it. Don't 0.98

00:24:42.200 overthink it. That didn't fucking happen. Because in no universe would that ever happen. It's a flying 0.98

00:24:51.620 unicorn. It's a black hole opened up on TV. It's magic. You don't have to know a lot about

00:25:02.780 the details or look behind it or get under the hood or really investigate it. You just look at it and

00:25:10.820 say to yourself, well, that didn't fucking happen. That's it. That's the whole technique. If you can't 0.98

00:25:17.800 do that, you're not really understanding much of the news. Let me give you another one.

00:25:23.440 Did the President of the United States intentionally incite violence at the Capitol, a violent overthrow or

00:25:36.520 insurrection of the United States? Do you think he did that? There's an impeachment trial about that.

00:25:44.200 Do you think that actually happened? Let me tell you why you know it didn't happen.

00:25:52.640 Here's why. That didn't fucking happen. No, because it didn't happen in any universe. 0.98

00:26:01.400 In the entire simulation, if there are infinite universes, as some people theorize,

00:26:08.140 it didn't happen in any of the universes. Because it couldn't happen. It's absurd. It's ridiculous

00:26:15.180 on its surface. All right, let me give you, we'll see if you've learned anything. We'll give you a test. 0.93

00:26:21.340 I'm going to give you two statements, and you have to figure out which one of these

00:26:25.460 didn't happen. And you have to use the same standard. You just have to look at it and say,

00:26:31.520 well, that didn't fucking happen. That's it. That's the whole technique. Here are two examples. 0.96

00:26:38.800 Yesterday, I walked my dog. That's statement number one. And you get to decide, is that

00:26:47.300 potentially true? You don't know if it's true. But is it potentially true? Or would you say of that,

00:26:53.620 that didn't fucking happen? In the comments, true. People say, yeah. Now, it happens, it was true. 0.98

00:27:03.580 It was true. But at the very least, it was maybe true. Wouldn't you agree? Maybe I didn't walk the

00:27:10.740 dog yesterday. But it was in the category of things that could be maybe true. Maybe it was true.

00:27:16.840 All right, here's my second statement. I went out in the backyard, and I flapped my arms so hard,

00:27:23.140 that for two minutes or so, I was able to hover over the ground like a bird, sort of like a

00:27:31.860 hummingbird. Now, the trick of it is that you have to flap really hard. If you didn't flap hard enough,

00:27:37.740 well, you're not going to get any height at all. But I went in the backyard, I flapped my hands really

00:27:41.840 hard, and I managed to hover above the ground for two minutes. Now, here's your test. Apply the

00:27:48.520 standard of, did that really happen? Go. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. I'm looking at your comments.

00:27:58.420 Somebody says, I believe you. It's true. Stop lying.

00:28:06.020 All right, here's how you should have solved that puzzle. When I told you I flapped my arms until I

00:28:13.100 hovered across the ground, this should have been the entire mental process. That didn't fucking 0.98

00:28:20.560 happen. That's it. That's it. So you have to learn that. Believe it or not, you have to learn that. 0.97

00:28:30.340 Because a lot of the world was swallowing the Q stuff and the Russia collusion stuff. 0.83

00:28:39.360 And do you know what you should have said to all of the Q stuff? That's not fucking true. 1.00

00:28:47.480 That's it. You don't need some kind of an insight to know that these things are not true. 0.97

00:28:54.780 It doesn't take any insight at all to know these are not true. All right. Alan Dershowitz has some

00:29:04.400 smart thoughts about the impeachment trial. So he's got three constitutional reasons that

00:29:11.600 it's bogus. Now, I don't think anybody cares about the constitutionality of this, do they?

00:29:19.020 Do you think that the Senate cares one bit about whether it's constitutional? No. Do you think the

00:29:26.860 Democrats care if they're following constitutional norms? No. No. Do you think that

00:29:34.080 whether or not it was constitutional, the Republicans are going to vote a different way

00:29:38.900 than you already know they're going to vote? No. No. So it really doesn't matter if it's

00:29:45.280 constitutional or not. It really doesn't. Because it's a political process. They can just pretend it

00:29:51.340 is. If they had enough people to pretend it is, then there's a conviction, I guess, if that's what you

00:29:57.800 call it. So it's irrelevant. But the arguments are interesting. Number one, Dershowitz says,

00:30:06.180 the Senate has no jurisdiction over an ex-president. So they can do anything they want, but they don't

00:30:12.580 have any jurisdiction. It would be sort of like the Boy Scouts of America, or the Scouts of America,

00:30:18.400 whatever they're called now, trying to put you in jail. The Scouts are not a legal process. They

00:30:27.360 can't put you in jail. So even if the PTA has a trial and finds you guilty, it doesn't really matter

00:30:35.840 because the PTA doesn't have any authority over you. So that's a pretty good argument. The Senate

00:30:42.000 has no jurisdiction. The other is that free speech is protected. So whatever the president said,

00:30:47.780 even if the outcome of that was some violence, it's still free speech. So that's the end of the

00:30:56.140 story. And then the third one's a little more technical. There's, I guess, part of the Constitution

00:31:01.660 says Congress shall make no law, and that includes any action, as Dershowitz explains, abridging the

00:31:08.900 freedom of speech. So if Congress punishes Trump for his speech, his freedom of speech,

00:31:17.200 they would be doing exactly what the Constitution specifically says they can't do. So you wouldn't

00:31:23.320 even have to interpret the Constitution. It says it directly. It says Congress shall make no law,

00:31:30.560 and then I guess you would have to interpret the part about or other actions, because it's unclear on

00:31:36.560 that, abridging the freedom of speech. So those are pretty good arguments, but they're irrelevant

00:31:42.940 to impeachment, I think. Here's a little tip for you. If you're a Democrat and you want to disguise

00:31:55.360 the fact that you're a brainwashed, fake news-believing revenge puppet, and that what you really want is to 0.73

00:32:04.040 punish Trump supporters, that's what you really want. But you want to hide that and look like you're 0.96

00:32:10.960 a serious citizen who cares about the well-being of the republic. So if you'd like to disguise it,

00:32:17.240 the best way to do it is to go on social media and declare that Trump's public call for peaceful

00:32:24.420 protests for better election transparency is really inciting a violent coup involving a Viking hat and

00:32:33.380 plastic ties. So if you can sell to people the idea that asking for peaceful protests for better

00:32:42.140 election transparency is inciting a coup, and that that coup was a plan to hold the government of the

00:32:52.400 United States using nothing but a Viking hat and some plastic ties and capturing an empty room.

00:32:59.060 And that was their plan to overthrow the greatest military in the world and hold the government.

00:33:08.620 So let me ask you this. I taught you now how to identify bullshit from actual news. Let me 0.98

00:33:18.160 give you another example and we'll test it again. Now remember, the only thinking you have to do is,

00:33:26.780 well, that didn't fucking happen. Or the opposite, which is, yeah, it might have happened. You don't 0.90

00:33:34.300 know if it happened usually, but it might have. Were there people who were quite serious about

00:33:43.000 overthrowing the actual legal government and ignoring the Constitution, and they thought that they could

00:33:52.260 take over and hold the government or change who was in charge via the process of entering a building

00:34:01.340 that was otherwise empty with nothing but some, I guess, some clubs, some umbrellas, a Viking hat,

00:34:11.780 and some plastic ties? Was it their plan? Now, I'm sure that there were people who had, you know,

00:34:19.280 concealed carry as well. But was it their plan to actually hold the government like an actual coup

00:34:28.400 and control it with their Viking hat, their plastic ties, a few guys who had concealed carry probably,

00:34:39.420 but did not brandish them? Was that actually really happening?

00:34:50.020 Well, I would apply the standard. That didn't fucking happen. That didn't fucking happen. 0.97

00:34:59.660 There was no attempted coup. If it had been an attempted coup, it would have looked a lot different. 0.98

00:35:07.860 Because nobody, nobody is so dumb that they think that they could have taken over the government 0.95

00:35:18.380 of the United States by taking over an empty room in the Capitol with their plastic ties and their 0.98

00:35:25.900 Viking horns and taking selfies. That's not even close to a coup. That's not in the zip code of a coup.

00:35:35.300 That's not in the solar system of a coup. That's not in the Milky Way of a coup.

00:35:45.680 So if you're looking at that and trying to say, is this real? Apply this standard. That didn't fucking happen.

00:35:53.320 Is Bigfoot rummaging through your refrigerator downstairs right now? Is he? 0.99

00:36:04.240 That's not fucking happening. See, this standard works for everything. 0.89

00:36:09.700 We'll clear up quite a bit, I think, for you. All right. Those are my comments for today.

00:36:15.960 Okay. Remember that Periscope will be going away. So one of these days soon, I will only be on YouTube.

00:36:25.420 So you might want to make the transition quickly, because it's the same content, you still have

00:36:31.820 commenting, and it's just on YouTube. So you Periscopers probably might want to get used to 1.00

00:36:38.580 YouTube right away, because it'll be the only game in town pretty soon, although the locals platform

00:36:45.400 will have streaming sometime in the coming weeks, we hope, at least in beta. All right.

00:36:52.560 Why not go to HAPS? Okay. Did you hear that the Clubhouse app, where I guess it's audio only and

00:37:06.920 people can talk, got banned in China? China isn't even pretending anymore. Ivermectin, somebody asked.

00:37:16.900 Well, Ivermectin appears to be one of these things that people on social media talk about

00:37:22.300 as working, but the medical community as a whole is not embracing, and who knows why.

00:37:32.660 Is HAPS a thing? H-A-P-P-S? Rumble? Oh, yeah. You know, Rumble has live. Does Rumble have live streaming?

00:37:42.700 They didn't have live streaming a while ago. All right. Just looking at your comments for a moment.

00:37:50.320 Start your own platform. Well, I wonder if Trump will start a platform or if he'll do a roll-up.

00:37:56.900 You know, here's what Trump should do. So you've got your rumbles and your gabs and your parlors and

00:38:05.320 your few other things. Maybe he should just roll up two or three of them under one brand and make it

00:38:13.940 some other kind of social media. The problem is if Trump starts a social media platform,

00:38:21.580 it's going to attract pretty much exclusively, you know, the same crowd that supported him. So,

00:38:30.160 you know, nothing's going to be as good as, say, a Twitter would be for showing both sides, you know.

00:38:35.680 If you took all of the trolls and critics and Democrats away from Twitter, I don't know if I

00:38:44.000 would even be there. Because if he can't hear both sides, what's the point, really?

00:38:51.860 So that's the problem with the new, the rogue social media sites is that they're not going to

00:38:58.840 attract both sides. And if they can't do that, they don't really have a product, in my opinion.

00:39:03.540 That will be a problem. All right.

00:39:09.560 Somebody's saying Twitter co-opted Periscope's function so you can still broadcast on Twitter.

00:39:15.520 I don't know the details of that. I think that you are roughly correct that Twitter will have

00:39:21.000 some built-in process that may be a partial or full substitute for Periscope. If that's the case,

00:39:29.200 I may use it, but we'll see. But I have to wait and see what that's all about first. All right,

00:39:36.820 that's all for now. I'll talk to you later.

00:39:42.200 All right, YouTubers, you're here for another minute.

00:39:47.660 Dilbert's new company needs to develop the new platform. Hey, that's a good idea.

00:39:51.160 Someone hacked a water plant in Florida. That's dangerous.

00:39:58.180 Did I see Dr. Simone Gold's conference on the dangers? Dr. Simone Gold is, once you become the

00:40:07.680 skeptic, I don't believe anything you say anymore. So the medical skeptics who are skeptical about one

00:40:16.120 thing, and then they move to a new thing to be skeptical about, I immediately just say,

00:40:21.400 oh, I get it. They're trying to be the skeptical person. And they lose all credibility, frankly,

00:40:27.800 by the time they go to the second skeptical thing, even if they're right. When I talk about

00:40:32.520 credibility, I mean, you know, how real does it look, not how real is it?

00:40:38.160 Have you heard the name of the DC cop who shot Ashley Babbitt? I haven't. And I think the point 0.99

00:40:49.860 you're trying to make is that if it had been a white cop who shot a black citizen, that we would 0.86

00:40:57.440 know the name of the cop. But if it was a white cop who shot this Trump supporter, that we don't hear 0.92

00:41:03.980 the name of the cop. But we do know that the cop is not going to be charged because it was judged

00:41:10.360 that it was a good shooting. Good meaning, good in quotes. Obviously, there's nothing good about it.

00:41:17.540 But I would agree that the officer should not be charged based on what I saw on video. What I saw

00:41:24.060 on video did it look like he had to do what he had to do. All right.

00:41:32.900 On the Trumpites. Yeah. All right. That's all for now. I'll talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 09, 2021

Episode 1278 Scott Adams： My Impeachment Trial Starts Today, and Let's Talk About Biden's Huge Failures So Far

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript