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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript