Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1294 Scott Adams： Trump Taxes, Humanized Mice, Irrational Doctors, and Fauci Hatred

00:00:00.000 Hey, everybody. Come on in. Come on in. Still time. You can catch the best show of the whole

00:00:09.700 day. Now, I know I say that a lot, but haven't been wrong yet, have I? No way. And how can

00:00:18.900 you enjoy this even more? Hard to believe, right? I know. I know. It's a big claim. But

00:00:26.060 you can. It can be done. It's almost impossible, but I have faith in you. I know you can do

00:00:33.220 it. And all you need is a cup or mug or glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or

00:00:39.280 flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me

00:00:48.080 now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything

00:00:52.540 better. It's called the simultaneous sip. What do we need more than anything in the world

00:00:57.680 right now? A little news about Trump. We've got some. Now, that's a perfect day. Trump's

00:01:10.880 in the headlines. Coffee is warm. You're all here. That's what I call a good start. All

00:01:19.580 right. Well, the biggest news is there's an unconfirmed report, which are my favorite kind,

00:01:29.780 that the Wuhan lab was at one point doing experiments on humanized mice, giving them some kind of bat

00:01:39.640 viruses to see if they could do it, which they could, allegedly. Now, the first thing you need

00:01:46.440 to know about any report that comes out of the Wuhan lab, don't believe anything about the Wuhan lab.

00:01:56.300 If there's one category of news that you should disbelieve automatically, it's 100% of everything

00:02:05.160 they ever said about the Wuhan lab. There's nothing to believe about that story. Now, I'm not saying that

00:02:12.620 they did or did not weaponize a virus or release it or anything else. I'm just saying that there is no

00:02:20.800 credible reporting about the Wuhan lab. Oh, there's a lot of reporting, some of it from our own

00:02:28.800 government, but none of it you should believe. None of it. But here's the scariest part. The Wuhan lab

00:02:38.540 lab was working on humanized mice, and I feel like they buried the lead. Lead is spelled L-E-D-E,

00:02:48.280 if you didn't know that. One of those little trivia things you could know. And that's a publishing

00:02:55.780 talk, burying the lead. Anyway, I'm a little bit more worried about these humanized mice

00:03:03.340 than I am about the virus. Oh, sure, a virus can cause a pandemic and bring the whole planet to its

00:03:10.900 knees, but I don't think that's as dangerous as humanized mice. Because my first question is,

00:03:19.780 how big are they? And do they look more like mice or more like people, or is it sort of a hybrid,

00:03:29.220 sort of a big mouse person? And my second question is, how large can these humanized mice be

00:03:39.340 before it's creepy to use them for experiments? Yeah, you could use a bug for an experiment and

00:03:45.960 a little mouse. But as soon as things get bigger, this doesn't feel fair to use them for experiments

00:03:52.980 anymore. So I would worry that some of these humanized mice get out of the Wuhan laboratory,

00:03:59.900 possibly start mating once they're outside, create an entire civilization of humanized mice,

00:04:06.500 possibly five to six feet tall. Probably good at math. They've got that human part.

00:04:12.800 And then it's planet of the apes all over again.

00:04:16.280 Yeah, planet of the apes. Okay, no, there's humanized mice just means they have some genetic

00:04:26.140 thing that makes them react like people. But it's way more fun, isn't it? It's way more fun

00:04:32.020 to think that there are rat people walking around that escaped from the Wuhan lab.

00:04:38.640 All right, let's talk about Dr. Fauci. People are loving to hate on Dr. Fauci.

00:04:45.200 And I feel like that's just become his job now. I think Fauci's job is to be the bad cop.

00:04:53.700 Doesn't it feel that way? If you are criticizing Fauci for being more, let's say, more extreme

00:05:00.400 about the likelihood of wearing masks for a longer time or whatever, if that's how you're thinking of

00:05:06.900 him, you probably want to modify that a little bit. Because it seems to me that Fauci is doing a

00:05:14.500 good job of being a bad cop. The bad cop in this example being the one who tells you the scarier

00:05:22.140 version of the story to get you to at least wear your mask now. All right. So it's sort of like a

00:05:29.620 big ask. So when Fauci is seemingly more extreme about how long you will wear masks, maybe to 2022, he's

00:05:39.460 saying, does anybody believe that? I mean, in your own mind, do you believe that we're going to wear masks

00:05:49.880 masks that long, even after vaccinations? And I guess Meghan McCain went after him on The View for

00:05:57.280 for saying that he couldn't answer the question of whether if you had your vaccinations, let's say

00:06:06.320 you're a grandparent, could you hug your grandkids after waiting for the vaccination to kick in?

00:06:12.420 And apparently he couldn't directly answer the question, wanted to, you know, check the data and stuff like

00:06:18.800 that. Now, how big a story is that? That Meghan McCain on The View is going after Fauci? It's not. It's

00:06:31.440 completely unimportant. Fauci, I think, is doing something useful, even though you hate it. And the something

00:06:40.040 useful is he's the bad cop. He's giving you the extreme version. I don't know that that's a mistake.

00:06:47.580 As long as you have other voices out there, you know, some optimists and some realists,

00:06:53.260 I feel like you need a bad cop. I don't feel like that's a mistake. I don't. Because you know how human

00:07:00.480 psychology works, right? We're going to, our brains are going to triangulate on, you know, something in

00:07:07.440 between the extreme views. So he's creating, I'll say extreme, you could argue about that

00:07:13.860 characterization, but a more aggressive view about how long we would have to wear masks and be locked

00:07:20.620 down, etc. I feel it's useful. I do feel it's useful. So I'm not going to be his critic. And I also

00:07:27.920 going to use the same standard I said from day one of the pandemic, all of our experts are going to make

00:07:33.380 a lot of mistakes. Because it's new stuff. And as awesome as science is, eventually, it makes a lot

00:07:41.280 of mistakes in the beginning. That's just how the process works. So anything that Fauci has gotten

00:07:46.240 wrong, I forgive him publicly. I think he's a patriot. I think he's doing what he can.

00:07:52.980 And I think we need a bad cop. And I don't mind that it's him. All right. Raul Davis

00:08:00.860 tweeted something that will make you think for a long time. All right. I'm going to read the tweet

00:08:10.660 or the quote. And by the way, you should follow Raul Davis, CEO branding is, I guess, the label he's

00:08:19.880 got on his Twitter account just to search for him. He has lots of good observations. So he says the

00:08:26.280 strange thing about the simulation, you know, the simulation we're all living in, is that robots

00:08:32.920 will realize they're alive. At the same point, humans realize they aren't. Just chew on that for a

00:08:42.500 while. I don't know how many different ways you can interpret that. But I like them all. I'll just

00:08:49.500 say it again. Robots will realize they're alive. At the same time that humans realize they aren't.

00:08:58.960 Just live with that for a little while. I'm not even going to say anything about it. Just live with

00:09:03.400 it for a while. It reminds me of something I said recently, that having complete power and having no

00:09:16.120 power at all are the same thing. Again, I'm not going to explain it. Once you realize that that's

00:09:23.920 true, you sort of realize you're at a different level of awareness. But you can't get there because

00:09:30.880 somebody else explained it to you. Until you realize that having complete power and having no

00:09:37.420 power at all are exactly the same, you're going to be kind of locked where you are. All right.

00:09:44.780 One of my favorite stories. There are a lot of fun stories today. The news, sometimes the news is fun.

00:09:51.020 Do you remember, let's say years ago when I was a kid, the news was nothing but bloodshed.

00:09:57.260 It was just death, death, death, bloodshed. And now that it's turned into this fake news,

00:10:05.080 they don't really need to tell you a lot of ugly things that will make you turn off the TV

00:10:09.980 because you would just go watch something else if you got sad every time you watch TV.

00:10:15.220 So they're trying to make the news more interesting and they have succeeded. So there was an AP reporter

00:10:21.000 at some press conference with, I guess, the Biden administration. Was it the Secretary of State?

00:10:31.400 Doesn't matter. Anyway, they were talking about this Russian pipeline project, the whatever it's

00:10:39.080 called, Nord Stream 2. And the risk of this pipeline is that it would bring Russian natural gas to Europe.

00:10:47.440 Now that sounds like a good thing. Hey, everybody likes natural gas. Don't we? I guess not everybody.

00:10:55.420 But the problem would be that it would make Europe dependent on Russia for a big part of their energy,

00:11:01.660 even more than they already are. And so Trump had put the clamp on that. And I guess Trump had

00:11:09.160 caused a number of companies that had been working on it to withdraw. So this Biden appointee was

00:11:16.180 sort of claiming credit that Biden had put some extra sanctions on Russia. And the AP reporter asked

00:11:25.760 the question this way. And it's the way he asked the question that's the fun part. Because after four

00:11:32.140 years of watching Trump get hammered by the press, we realize that the press has realized that they,

00:11:39.280 the press, can't survive without controversy. And once Trump is, he's not out of the headlines, but once

00:11:48.800 he's a minor part of the headlines, they don't know how to keep their jobs. Right? They're gonna have to

00:11:55.920 start accusing Biden of something. They're gonna have to cause some, make some problems if there aren't

00:12:02.140 any there already. So there's an AP reporter says this about the pipeline thing.

00:12:09.900 Let me give you the exact quote. He said, quote, to the Biden guy. What was he? Somebody tell me in

00:12:19.160 the comments, the Biden guy, was he the Secretary of State? I'm not sure. Anyway, he said, the AP

00:12:29.220 reporter says, you guys have only been in office for a month, right? Are you telling me that in the last

00:12:35.680 four weeks, these 18 companies all of a sudden decided to say, quote, oh, my God, we better not do,

00:12:44.040 we better not be doing anything with this Nord Stream 2, Lee said. He's a reporter, I guess.

00:12:50.200 And he goes, quote, you guys are taking credit for stuff the previous administration did. Yes or no?

00:12:55.920 Don't you love this reporter? I think it's just the way he worded it. Yeah, Anthony Blinken. Thank

00:13:03.740 you. It was Anthony Blinken. I just love the way the reporter worded this question. And I would have

00:13:12.260 loved it, you know, no matter who he asked it of. It's just a well-worded question. Because he's

00:13:18.200 basically calling calling the guy out for bullshit in the most direct way. It was just lovely. In other

00:13:25.780 news, you might be aware that there was some Pennsylvania-related election court cases that

00:13:35.680 got thrown out. And the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, meaning that they would not be heard

00:13:43.500 by any additional court. Now, the cases were rejected for technical reasons about standing.

00:13:51.080 So nobody looked at the details of the fraud claims, just the general picture of whether the

00:13:57.440 court could look at the case at all. And they decided, the Supreme Court decided five to four

00:14:02.920 to not look at them. But that creates an interesting situation, doesn't it? It's five to four.

00:14:10.020 So doesn't that tell us that there are four people who have been nominated and got put on the Supreme

00:14:23.300 Court? So they're like serious people, right? Serious. I mean, say what you will about our Supreme

00:14:32.440 Court. They're all smart, right? They're all qualified. They're all, oh, somebody says it was 6-3.

00:14:40.020 Thank you for that correction. It was 6-3, not 5-4. So there were three justices who dissented.

00:14:48.940 Judge Thomas was one of them. And here's what he said in his dissent. He said,

00:14:54.380 an election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence.

00:15:01.760 So in less complicated language, he's saying, just because you haven't seen fraud, that is not proof

00:15:12.860 that it doesn't exist. Has anybody said that before? Me, right? That's exactly what I say almost every

00:15:25.460 day since November. I've been saying to people, you understand that the lack of evidence being shown to

00:15:34.800 you personally is not proof that evidence doesn't exist. You know that, right? And then people act

00:15:41.980 like they don't know that. The news, the fake news, pretends that not being able to find evidence is proof

00:15:50.900 of no evidence when you haven't looked. Now, if you had looked, that would be a little stronger argument,

00:15:58.060 right? It's not an absolute. But if you had looked really hard in all the right places and you didn't

00:16:04.560 find it, well, you still couldn't be positive it didn't exist. But you could be pretty sure. But we're

00:16:11.120 not there because we haven't looked in all the places it could exist. So you've got somebody on

00:16:16.900 the Supreme Court who says exactly what I said, and you could pretty much get kicked off of social media

00:16:23.160 for this opinion. Couldn't you? Just think of this. If you worded this just slightly differently,

00:16:30.080 the exact opinion of a sitting justice on the Supreme Court, if you just reworded his opinion and put it

00:16:38.300 in your own words, could you get kicked off of social media? You could. I believe you could for

00:16:45.460 saying exactly what he just said, just wording it poorly, right? That's all it would take. Because

00:16:51.280 the implication is that there might be fraud in the election. Not that there probably is, not that

00:16:59.560 it has been detected, but there's an implication that there could be. And further, if I read between

00:17:09.180 the lines of what Justice Thomas says, that nobody looked. So you can't make a claim either way,

00:17:16.220 because nobody looked. That's dangerous, isn't it? He's right on the edge of losing his freedom of

00:17:23.840 speech, at least in the limited way of being on social media. Actually, I don't know if he's on social

00:17:29.060 media, so it doesn't matter. Okay. So then he went on, just as Thomas said. And here's sort of the

00:17:39.420 money shot here. He goes, quote, the decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt,

00:17:47.280 meaning the public has some doubt about the election, is baffling. He wrote, by doing nothing,

00:17:54.940 we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better

00:18:01.640 and expect more of us. Boom. That's exactly right. That is exactly right. Now, I don't know if this is

00:18:14.920 a good enough reason for the Supreme Court to take the case. If the Supreme Court rejected it for

00:18:22.020 technical reasons of not having standing, etc., I don't think that's a wrong decision. So I'm not saying

00:18:29.140 that Justice Thomas has the right decision. But he has expressed exactly what at least something like

00:18:36.040 half of the citizens of this country are thinking. He perfectly expressed it. So I appreciate that about

00:18:41.260 a minority opinion. You know, one of the best things the Supreme Court does as a process is they let the

00:18:48.680 people who are on the losing side, if you will, write your full opinions so you can see what their

00:18:54.420 problem was. This is a real good service for the country. And I love that Justice Thomas took this

00:19:00.240 position. So good for him. In Trump news, apparently the Supreme Court, again, always in the news,

00:19:12.080 has decided that this Democrat DA, Cy Vance in New York, can get access to eight years of Trump's taxes.

00:19:22.960 So it looks like that's going to happen. Now, we are told that that does not mean that these taxes

00:19:28.920 will be public information. Can I take a moment? That's right. We're told that if that Cy Vance

00:19:38.140 and the DA in New York gets access to all of Trump's tax records for eight years, that that won't become

00:19:47.440 public, necessarily.

00:19:51.960 Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I fake laugh at that idea. Of course it will become public. Do you think

00:20:01.300 there's anything more likely to become public than this? I can't even think of anything more likely to

00:20:06.780 become public. And it's worse than that. It won't even be all of it. It will be like little snapshots

00:20:15.080 and rumors, and I've got an unnamed source who has a copy, and then one page will appear somewhere.

00:20:22.720 You wonder where the rest of it is. You don't have to wonder which way this is going. Right? Yeah.

00:20:28.380 Leaked in three, two, one. But here's the question you must ask yourself.

00:20:33.280 What's in those things? Now, it's my opinion. I completely agree with Trump, which is this looks

00:20:43.480 like a witch hunt. It looks like a political, you know, vendetta. It does not look like the justice

00:20:51.040 system doing what the justice does. It doesn't look like it. Now, is that because the reporting is bad?

00:20:58.220 I don't know. Maybe you've seen different reports than I have. Here's what we know about it. We know

00:21:05.280 that the biggest part of the case, I guess there's some Stormy Daniels part of it, which seems

00:21:11.240 irrelevant. I can't believe that the payments to Stormy Daniels and the other woman are really the

00:21:18.040 subject of the New York district attorney putting all the resources on this case because he paid

00:21:24.340 some women on the side, allegedly. Definitely did. Do you think that's why the district attorneys

00:21:32.920 are after him for that payment to the girlfriend that he didn't account for, right? I don't think

00:21:37.900 so. And let's say that the worst thing happened because of whatever they're alleging about that.

00:21:44.680 What would that be? Just a fine or something? A small fine? So it's not that, right? The bigger part

00:21:51.880 of the case is that, allegedly, Trump inflated the value of his company and or properties for

00:22:02.380 getting a loan, but then he deflated them for purposes of paying property taxes. Sounds pretty

00:22:11.420 bad, doesn't it? If you don't know much about taxes and finance and accounting, and somebody told to

00:22:18.700 you that he had two different values for his property, one that he only shows to the tax people

00:22:25.580 and one that he only shows to the property tax people, you know, one for the income tax purpose,

00:22:32.260 one for property tax purposes. So that's pretty bad, right? That sounds pretty bad. Except that's

00:22:41.280 normal. That's normal. It's being reported as a crime. But the part they've reported, now I don't

00:22:50.980 know if there's something else to the story, but the part they're reporting, that's not a crime.

00:22:57.420 That's actually routine. That's normal. My house has a value according to the town for property tax

00:23:08.080 values. That value that the town thinks my house has is based on information I've given them when

00:23:15.160 it was first built, etc. Do you think that if I had a choice of, let's say, there was something

00:23:21.420 ambiguous and it could go either way, like legitimately it could go either way if you're

00:23:26.820 analyzing it, what do you think I picked? Well, of course, I pick all the assumptions that are

00:23:32.340 supportable, like I'm not going to do anything illegal, but you take these supportable assumptions

00:23:37.440 that work in your favor. And if you've got two sets of situations, one for property tax, one for

00:23:45.620 getting a loan, I'm sorry, I think I said before that there was two reasons, one for income tax versus

00:23:52.100 property tax. I should have said one was for the bank to give them a loan and the other purpose was

00:23:57.520 for property tax. But that's sort of normal stuff. Let me tell you a story that taught me a lot about

00:24:08.200 doing your taxes. Years ago, a friend of mine told me the story. He said he was doing his own taxes and

00:24:13.520 they were kind of complicated and there was a situation in which the IRS provided ambiguous

00:24:18.740 instructions. And it seemed like there were two legitimate ways you could calculate this thing.

00:24:24.220 One of them would make him pay more taxes and another way would make him pay less. And he didn't

00:24:30.140 know which way to go and he didn't want to get in trouble with the IRS. So he called his friend who

00:24:33.740 is an expert in finance and said, I got this problem. You know, it looks like both ways are acceptable

00:24:39.900 according to the instructions, but one will pay more and one will pay less. Which one should I do?

00:24:44.900 What would the friend who is an expert advise in that situation? To keep his friend from any trouble?

00:24:55.480 Yeah. So somebody who has experience in these fields says quickly in the comments, the one where you pay

00:25:02.380 less every time. Oh, somebody says there are people here who are saying pay more. Now, everybody who's

00:25:09.360 saying pay more, you pick the one where you pay the most, you're not experienced in the tax world.

00:25:16.320 Everybody who said pay less is either a good guesser or you have experience in this field.

00:25:23.340 You don't go to jail for following the IRS's own instructions.

00:25:28.360 That's it. So I had the IRS called him in on this one point, which is unlikely, by the way. I don't

00:25:37.980 know if you know this, but audits are usually targeted. So an audit is usually I'm looking at

00:25:43.740 something specific. I'm not necessarily looking at everything you've ever done. I'm just looking at

00:25:48.260 this specific question. What are the odds that that one thing that he would be audited on? Pretty low,

00:25:54.800 right? Any one thing you do, the odds are low, unless it's something that creates a flag,

00:26:01.780 such as a home office thing that can cause a flag. So, and then what happens if the IRS calls him in?

00:26:10.920 They, let's say there's a chance they do an audit. They say, no, you know, you should have calculated

00:26:16.280 this other way. Does he go to jail? No, no, there's not even really any risk because he followed

00:26:24.020 the IRS's own directions. He just picked one of two interpretations. There's no risk there. Now he

00:26:31.420 might, might have to pay a fine if the IRS says, you know, but really this is the way it should have

00:26:37.240 been. You're going to pay a little fine on this one. All right. The, the size of the risk is minuscule

00:26:43.120 and you know, the, the size, whatever he would be penalized lately is not going to change anybody's

00:26:49.600 life, right? So generally speaking, it is normal and routine to take different interpretations,

00:26:55.540 even when it creates different values, one for the bank and one for property tax, completely normal

00:27:02.760 situation. Is your news failing you? Because I'll bet that's the first time half of you even heard that,

00:27:13.000 right? Wouldn't you say that's the first time you've ever known that the accusation about his

00:27:19.000 taxes on the surface, it's not illegal. There must be something below the surface that I don't, by the

00:27:27.580 way, if you, if you, it's not illegal to have different estimates for the values, it would be illegal if

00:27:34.840 you did one of them fraudulently. Now Trump is claiming accurately that his taxes are done by

00:27:43.580 high-end accounting firms. So therefore the part that the accounting firm was responsible for

00:27:50.040 is unlikely to be a Trump problem. In other words, if, if his technique was blessed by a big accounting

00:27:58.300 firm, the IRS is going to look at it and say, okay, this isn't the case of Trump trying to do something

00:28:04.480 illegal. This is the accounting firm giving him advice, which is different, right? They're not

00:28:10.220 going to treat that the same. The IRS doesn't expect the business owner to be a tax expert. So if a,

00:28:16.940 if a legitimate tax expert gives you advice and it's all documented, you as the owner are not in a lot

00:28:24.240 of trouble. You might have to pay a fine, right? There's still a fine possibly, but you're not going to

00:28:29.680 go to jail because your accountants who are really good accountants made an aggressive assumption.

00:28:35.680 You just don't go to jail for that. So, um, the other thing you need to know is that just because

00:28:43.700 the accountants blessed the technique, that doesn't mean it's okay. They've only blessed the technique.

00:28:51.980 They haven't blessed the assumptions that went into the technique. That's not something the accounting

00:28:59.260 firm does. The accounting firm has to trust the company to give them the right numbers, right?

00:29:06.100 Because the, the accounting firm doesn't audit the company and make sure that the number they gave them

00:29:11.980 for each of the values is correct. They just accept them. It is the company's responsibility to give

00:29:18.480 them the right numbers. So when Trump says, Hey, this great accounting firm did all my taxes,

00:29:24.680 don't interpret that as therefore there can't be a problem. That just means that they've blessed the

00:29:32.180 method. Doesn't mean they've blessed the numbers that went into the method. All right.

00:29:40.180 Scott does not do his own taxes. You are correct. Um, my taxes are so complicated

00:29:47.880 complicated. Oh my God. Like you, you can't even believe how complicated my taxes are.

00:29:54.380 All right. Um, I, I just, I just, I just, well, it's a different story. Um,

00:30:04.320 so I would agree with Trump's characterization of this as a witch hunt, unless the news can give us

00:30:11.320 some indication of why they're looking into him. It looks like they're just digging for something.

00:30:17.120 Just digging for something. I don't know what they're going to find there. We'll find out. All

00:30:22.420 right. Um, my favorite prediction that I'll remind you of all the time is that every day that Biden is

00:30:29.820 in office, Trump will look better. The reason being obvious when Trump's personality is out of the news,

00:30:37.620 all you have is, you know, his policies and Biden will have a tough time improving on a lot of his

00:30:44.320 policies. One of them, for example, is kids in cages. And hilariously, the Washington Post,

00:30:52.200 it's almost unbelievable that they have the, the, the balls to even do this, the Washington Post.

00:30:59.400 So after however many years of blaming Trump for kids in cages at the borders, they,

00:31:06.400 they're, they write a story about, uh, Biden's going to have the same problem, of course, because

00:31:12.700 the immigration is increasing. Uh, and he'll run out of, um, he'll run out of, let's say, civilized

00:31:20.540 appropriate places to keep all the people because there'll be too many people compared to the civilized

00:31:26.860 appropriate places to keep them temporarily. And so, uh, they've reactivated these, uh,

00:31:34.860 migrant facility for children, as the Washington Post calls it. It's a migrant facility for children.

00:31:41.660 And they're these little, uh, looks like these little temporary buildings that have air conditioning

00:31:46.540 and walls, but there are lots of these little pods lined up, largely windowless, or the, I don't know,

00:31:53.540 maybe they have a little window or something, but okay. Maybe they're not cages, but they're boxes.

00:32:04.540 If you were, if you were kept in a box with no windows, maybe you can see now, but I didn't see

00:32:10.680 any windows on them versus a cage. I don't know if you'd have necessarily a preference.

00:32:17.980 Would you? I mean, how many kids get put in one of these boxes? Is it better? I don't know.

00:32:27.360 So here we have Biden reproducing kids in cages, but maybe it's kids in boxes. Who knows? It's all bad,

00:32:35.340 right? So I don't want to make a light of this. Like nobody's making fun of people who are in bad

00:32:41.760 situation, especially kids. But it is fun watching the media try to spin this as a migrant facilities

00:32:51.300 for children, because I'm going to call everything that's a box from now on a migrant facility for

00:32:59.240 children. Yep. I got a package from, uh, Amazon today. I took my, my item and if it's migrant facility

00:33:08.940 for children, we call that a box, we used to call it a box. All right. Uh, how many of you are watching

00:33:16.740 my ongoing, uh, conversation, shall we call it online with on Twitter with the doctors? Is that,

00:33:25.020 is anybody watching the fun? So, um, as you know, if you watched recently, I've been questioning the

00:33:33.120 statistics about regular seasonal flu deaths. And this has attracted a number of professionals,

00:33:40.280 doctors and nurses to storm into my Twitter feed to call me an idiot in various ways. And to point

00:33:48.280 out how little I know about the doctoring business, my complete ignorance of science, my, my ignoring of

00:33:56.180 the experts and the data, they are quite, quite worked up. Some of them are very mad. And so I decided

00:34:05.460 to make them the show as I do. And you really should just check my Twitter feed and look for the,

00:34:15.720 my responses to the various people who have MD or RM behind their name. And just look at the

00:34:21.920 conversation. You're going to be amazed. Now what you're going to be amazed at is how doctors don't

00:34:29.720 know how to think. It's scary. Now, do doctors know more about medicine than I do? Yes, yes, yes.

00:34:41.200 Doctors know more than medicine, about medicine than I do. So I don't need to be reminded of that,

00:34:48.120 right? A lot of people have felt they needed to remind me of that, but kind of knew that, right?

00:34:54.220 But here are the, here's some of the things that they're, that they're getting wrong. First of all,

00:34:58.760 the mind reading. So some of them are telling me what I'm doing, but I'm not. So they're saying,

00:35:06.920 oh, you're quote tweeting me to attract all the trolls to come in. And, and you're a bad person,

00:35:13.660 Scott, because you're basically, it's a bad look, Scott. It's a bad look. You're a bad person because

00:35:19.440 you're just bringing all your trolls in to attack me. No, I'm not. That's just bad mind reading.

00:35:26.860 How, how do you know what my motivation is? Because you guessed. Is that how doctoring works?

00:35:33.280 You guess what people are thinking? How about just asking me? You could just ask me why I do it.

00:35:39.400 And I'll give you the reason. Because my entire content, including the Dilbert comic through every

00:35:47.900 comment I've ever made on politics, they're all in the same field, which is showing that the experts

00:35:54.320 are full of shit. In Dilbert, I show that the management experts are full of shit. I show that

00:36:00.820 your management is full of shit. Your training program is full of shit. Basically debunking experts

00:36:07.280 who know, wait for it, way more than I do, right? That's what I do. For 30 years, I've built a fortune

00:36:17.020 and a national reputation making fun of experts who are clearly not thinking well. Now they obviously

00:36:26.040 know more than I do about their area of expertise, but they don't think well. And it's obvious.

00:36:32.840 So mind reading is your first sign that somebody is not thinking well. They could ask me why I'm

00:36:39.100 doing something, and maybe I would tell them the truth, and maybe I wouldn't. I mean, I would tell

00:36:43.800 the truth. They wouldn't know. But if you're publicly debating with somebody and then assigning them

00:36:52.980 an opinion because you're a mind reader, and then criticizing the opinion you assign to them

00:36:57.960 purely through your imagination, are you a doctor? Are you a person of science?

00:37:06.200 That's the most ridiculously irrational thing you could ever do. Now, of course, all communication

00:37:11.780 requires making assumptions about what other people are thinking. You can't turn off your ability,

00:37:18.080 well, your reflex, I guess, to make assumptions about what people are thinking.

00:37:22.100 But where you should do that is in simple situations. Somebody orders food, you might

00:37:30.300 say to yourself, they're probably hungry. I mean, in simple situations, you'll get those

00:37:35.700 right most of the time. If somebody's yelling at you, you might say, hey, that person might

00:37:41.440 be angry. You'd probably be right. But I'll tell you where you're not good at it, the mind

00:37:47.260 reading thing. Anything complicated or novel, anything new, anything you haven't run across.

00:37:53.340 And they have never run across me, specifically, arguing about seasonal flu statistics. It's a

00:38:03.820 brand new situation. So how can anybody know what I'm thinking in this brand new situation?

00:38:10.420 It's dumb. It's dumb to think that they could guess what I'm thinking. Now, the real reason that

00:38:16.980 I tweet quote it is not so that my trolls can come in and attack them. That would be a dumb reason.

00:38:25.360 Like, why would I even do that? But there's a doctor who diagnosed me as having that motivation,

00:38:30.860 and I didn't even understand that motivation. Like, I don't know, because I'm a bad person,

00:38:36.540 I would do that, just to cause them some pain. Why would I do that? No, the reason I do it is that

00:38:43.420 it's the show. I'm putting on a show. I talk about, I've often talked about Trump,

00:38:50.800 knowing that he's in politics, but he's also putting on a show. And he was the only person

00:38:55.580 who really knew that, well, Reagan, I think, knew it. But he knew it better than other people knew it,

00:39:01.060 that the show was part of it. As a public figure, with the cartooning, as well as what I talk about

00:39:08.120 in politics and stuff, I'm always putting on a show. That's my job. So even if it's not, you know,

00:39:14.020 you're reading the comic, or watching it in the live stream, I'm always putting on the show.

00:39:19.880 If you're in my line of work, you're never really a civilian, if the public is watching you. You're

00:39:26.760 always putting on the show. And so the show is showing you that these experts probably know,

00:39:33.420 not probably, know a lot more than I do about their topic. But they don't know how to think.

00:39:39.920 Another one of them, and you'll see, used like a weird analogy to make a point. These are doctors

00:39:46.420 who don't know that analogies don't work that way. They're not part of reason in the traditional way

00:39:53.900 that people think. An analogy is great for explaining a new concept. They don't have any value for winning

00:40:00.520 an argument. Because they're just different situations. So somebody says, oh yeah? Well,

00:40:08.120 if this happened or that happened in this completely different situation, what would you do? And I say,

00:40:14.200 well, it's a different situation. It doesn't matter what I would do in that different situation.

00:40:19.720 It would be like saying, well, Elon Musk is putting people on Mars. But what if you were mowing your

00:40:27.840 lawn and you hit a rock? To which I say, that has nothing to do with going to the moon?

00:40:35.760 So unless your analogy is telling me some point, it's not an argument. It's just a different

00:40:41.820 situation. Doctors apparently don't know this, or at least the ones who were arguing with me.

00:40:46.360 One of them came in to tell me how dumb I was, because it was clearly true that the CDC,

00:40:54.040 what did he say? That the CDC has detailed statistics on seasonal flu deaths. So this is a doctor

00:41:06.080 coming in to dunk on me for being dumb by telling me that the CDC has detailed information about,

00:41:14.740 this is the exact quote, this is the exact quote from Dan Friedman, who's some kind of medical person.

00:41:21.400 And he said, I and others did explain to him, talking about me online here, that the CDC keeps

00:41:28.560 detailed flu data. No, they don't. No, they don't. So this guy is some kind of medical expert.

00:41:36.980 And he's coming in to me, and he doesn't even know that the CDC doesn't keep seasonal flu detailed

00:41:44.260 data. They do an estimate, but they don't count them. They can't tell you, you know, the details of

00:41:52.280 some specific person. That's not a thing. So here's the expert who knows less about this than I do.

00:41:59.460 I'm a freaking cartoonist, right? I just read some articles and looked into some things people

00:42:05.820 tweeted at me, and that's it. And somehow I knew more about it than this doctor who's coming into

00:42:10.280 the public to try to dunk on me. Here's the other question. And then somebody else who was also in

00:42:19.180 the medical field was sending me a bunch of anecdotal stories, stories in the news of individuals who died

00:42:25.700 from the seasonal flu. To make the case, and I was questioning why I don't know anybody who's ever

00:42:32.640 died of a seasonal flu, when the numbers are similar to the number of people who die from overdoses and

00:42:38.780 automobile accidents, but I know lots of those. If it's the same number of people every year,

00:42:45.580 why do I always know the automobile accidents and the overdoses, but I don't know anybody who's

00:42:51.980 died of a seasonal flu? Now, that's my question, which is not a statement. I'm not making a statement

00:42:59.300 that the seasonal flu is somehow not dangerous or whatever. I'm saying I can't understand how that

00:43:06.380 can make sense. Just explain it to me. Because there's probably something to learn in that,

00:43:10.360 if you could understand it. So here's the question I ask. So some of the examples that were sent to me,

00:43:17.560 I read the first one, and the headline is, you know, somebody died of the flu. And then you get

00:43:23.660 into it, and it's like it had meningitis and something else. So clearly there was an underlying

00:43:29.700 condition. So the very first example that I say doesn't exist, or I haven't seen it, so somebody

00:43:36.060 sends me an example of it exists, but I read it, and it's not. It had underlying conditions. So I look at

00:43:43.560 another one, and it's a young child died unexpectedly. And I said to myself, did they do an autopsy?

00:43:54.160 When a five-year-old dies of the seasonal flu, and they say there's no underlying condition,

00:44:02.700 so they died of the flu, is that because they did an autopsy, and they have determined

00:44:09.040 that there were no other causes. It was literally just the flu. And this kid was entirely healthy

00:44:16.160 otherwise. Do you think that happens? No. No. I don't know if it's ever happened. I think what

00:44:24.020 happens is the doctor says, well, this kid had flu symptoms. The kid died. Kids die of flus.

00:44:30.660 die to the flu. Right? Somebody said, would you ever know if it's all been faked? Well, I don't know

00:44:41.760 if faked is the right word. I wouldn't say that. But here's my point. What does it mean to say that

00:44:48.080 a five-year-old dies of the seasonal flu when millions of other five-year-olds did not?

00:44:55.000 But let's say one does. It's more than one, but let's say one does. Does that mean that that kid

00:45:02.100 died healthy? There was nothing wrong with that kid until the seasonal flu took the kid out?

00:45:09.460 Doesn't it seem more likely that there was something about that kid's immune response or situation

00:45:15.700 that was not quite entirely standard? Now, if your immune system is not standard,

00:45:23.340 but you don't have any challenge to it, are you healthy? Is a bubble boy healthy as long as he

00:45:33.480 stays in the bubble? Because if he's in the bubble, nothing can hurt him. But if he goes outside the

00:45:40.100 bubble where normal people are, I don't want to say normal because everybody has some kind of medical

00:45:45.300 problem, but the other people are. So the bubble boy goes outside and then immediately catches something

00:45:51.200 and dies. Did the bubble boy die perfectly healthy? Because the bubble boy was perfectly healthy

00:46:01.080 yesterday when he was in the bubble. So he goes outside and he gets the infection and the infection

00:46:08.020 kills him. So the cause of death was the infection, right? Because otherwise the bubble boy was perfectly

00:46:12.560 healthy. Obviously there's something wrong with the bubble boy in the sense that doesn't have the same

00:46:19.920 kind of immune system as everybody outside the bubble. I would say it seems obvious on the surface

00:46:27.600 that if millions of kids get the same seasonal flu and don't die, but every now and then one does,

00:46:36.480 isn't that more indicative that there's something going on with that kid that is at least

00:46:42.360 non-standard? A type of immune system that maybe hasn't been challenged yet, maybe one that's not fully

00:46:50.440 developed, one that has maybe overreactive so that it has too much of a response, which I understand is

00:46:58.460 actually the problem with kids. So are we only arguing about the word healthy? And is that science?

00:47:07.720 Is it science to argue over the definition of a word? Because what I see is that somebody who has a

00:47:15.260 non-standard body situation that makes them less able to survive the normal environment,

00:47:23.280 doctors are calling them healthy. That's just a weird definition of a word. I would call them people

00:47:31.280 who are unhealthy. They just haven't been challenged yet by the environment, which will take them out.

00:47:37.280 So when doctors are arguing over the word health, they're not really arguing science, are they?

00:47:46.800 It doesn't seem like this is even good thinking at all. And then others are saying that I'm making a

00:47:56.940 claim dressed up as a question. No, there are such things as questions. You can have a real question

00:48:04.600 about a fact that's important and in the news and doesn't make sense to your mind. You can ask that

00:48:12.960 question. Look at the number of experts who tell me I shouldn't ask the question. Because they believe

00:48:19.360 asking the question is really my way of making a statement without data. Why would they assume I

00:48:27.600 would do that? What's my payoff for doing that? It's crazy mind reading. You can have a question.

00:48:38.640 It's still okay. You can go out and have a question. But the funniest part is that these doctors tried to

00:48:46.360 shame me off my point. They tried to literally embarrass me and insult me away from my question.

00:48:55.600 Not answering the question, at least not answering it in a way that I find credible. But to shame me

00:49:02.980 from even asking it. Because they said it was dangerous. And that I'm a bad force. And I'm a bad

00:49:08.740 person. Because I'm asking a question about the data? Really? That's where we are.

00:49:15.760 And others saying that I had a political bias. What exactly is the political bias of wondering how

00:49:24.840 seasonal flu data is collected? Because that's Republican? Or what? What the hell does that

00:49:35.560 have to do with politics? I can't think of anything that has... How is that even related? Is there some

00:49:41.760 Republican who is the only one who's questioning the data on seasonal flu? I mean, that... So when

00:49:49.960 you see the experts completely unable to deal with simple concepts in reasoning, they're mind

00:49:57.760 reading, they're using analogies, they're trying to shame me off my point, telling me that I can't ask

00:50:03.840 a question because it looks like a statement to other people. That's the quality of your experts.

00:50:11.920 Now, let me point out another glaring problem. When the experts say, you cartoonist, as they're talking

00:50:20.800 to me, they say, you don't know as much as we do. And therefore, you should listen to the experts.

00:50:27.260 That's not true. There are plenty of cases where the, let's say, the client of the patient

00:50:38.960 knows more than the doctor does. You want to hear some examples? Now, do I even need to give you an

00:50:45.420 example? Have you ever been in a situation where your own condition, you knew more about it than the

00:50:52.320 doctor you were talking to? I'll bet every one of you. I'll bet every one of you, if you're old

00:50:58.780 enough, you've had a situation where there was one condition, maybe only once in your life, but at least

00:51:05.420 one condition where you knew more about it than the doctor you were talking about. All the time. Yeah,

00:51:12.780 look at the comments. Look at the comments. Now, is that because the doctor is unqualified?

00:51:17.600 No. It's because medicine is gigantic. It's a gigantic field. Even the doctor has to look stuff

00:51:26.160 up while you're in the office. If I go into the office, it's fairly common that the doctor says,

00:51:32.460 okay, those symptoms, and they have to type it into the computer and see what comes up, right?

00:51:39.540 So, and I'll give you a specific example. When I had, a lot of people know I had voice problems

00:51:45.400 years ago. I lost my ability to speak, and it was mysterious and couldn't figure it out.

00:51:51.340 I ended up solving it myself, using Google, because my doctors could not diagnose it.

00:51:59.660 How common is it that people correctly diagnose themselves when their doctor missed it?

00:52:06.880 Pretty common, right? Now, I do take the criticism that doctors hate it. When you've been doing your own

00:52:13.260 Google search, and you go in, and you tell the doctor what you have, I would hate that if I were

00:52:18.000 a doctor. And I don't believe that most people have the capability to do a Google search and diagnose

00:52:25.680 themselves accurately, you know, better than a doctor can. That's not common, but it happens.

00:52:33.200 Happened with me. So, once I learned that my condition was called this thing called spasmodic

00:52:39.700 dysphonia, fairly rare, I became sort of an expert on spasmodic dysphonia. Do you think that if I picked

00:52:48.140 a hundred doctors randomly and put them in my room and said, all right, a hundred doctors chosen

00:52:53.560 randomly, tell me everything you know about spasmodic dysphonia, how many of the hundred would

00:53:01.280 know as much as I do about a condition that I wrestled with and researched and had to deal with for

00:53:06.880 years? None. It would be exactly zero. There wouldn't be one person in the room who came

00:53:13.400 close, not even close, to how much I know medically and scientifically about this one thing.

00:53:23.180 So, having spent, you know, 20 minutes looking into the seasonal flu stuff, do I know more than the

00:53:28.760 doctors? Probably. And it wouldn't even be unusual. You can see this exact situation. We

00:53:36.860 here was a doctor who thought that the CDC keeps detailed flu records. I know that they

00:53:43.420 don't. Because a doctor told me. You know, it was something else I saw online. Other doctors

00:53:48.660 looked into it, found out they'd never counted them. It was just an estimate. All right.

00:53:56.140 So, apparently doctors do not learn reasoning skills in school. And it really shows, at least with the

00:54:02.920 ones who were on Twitter. And my book, Loser Think, that you see behind me, Loser Think talks about all

00:54:11.600 of these reasoning problems that I just mentioned. So, I would recommend for medical school, and maybe

00:54:20.480 for any other school, that Loser Think should be a required reading. Now, one of the things you're

00:54:28.120 hearing a lot of is that we should be teaching children to spot fake news. And we should teach

00:54:34.100 children how to think and deal with the fact that, you know, so much manipulation is happening in the

00:54:40.980 media. I don't know how to say this without sounding like it's just a commercial. But Loser Think is the

00:54:49.840 best way to do it. Because it's written to be friendly and easily digestible. And it's all the common

00:54:56.240 thinking errors that you see the experts use, the doctors in this case. And I think it should be

00:55:02.760 required. Now, of course, there's no way for you to separate that from the fact that I'm the author

00:55:09.760 of the book. And wouldn't it be good for me if everybody read my book? Of course. Of course it would

00:55:16.240 be. But I'm also serious that it should be required. Because you see professionals and scientists

00:55:24.220 getting out of school who can't think and how much are they going to help us without that. All right.

00:55:31.860 Mike Lindell is in a interesting and terrible situation in which, as you know, he'd been

00:55:38.280 questioning the credibility of the election. He says that it's cost him $65 million in businesses

00:55:46.420 so far for one year, based on big stores like Kohl's, Bed Bath & Beyond and stuff, dropping him

00:55:55.200 because of the controversy. Now, the first thing I say is, I am so opposed to big companies dropping

00:56:05.240 somebody's product because of what the CEO was saying. Because while I do not think that Mike Lindell

00:56:13.040 has good data for his argument, at least the stuff I've seen, I'm not seeing good sources for some

00:56:19.920 of it, he does have a right to do this. He has a right to say anything he wants if he believes it's

00:56:30.520 true. Well, even if he didn't believe it's true, he has a right. He does believe it's true. I think

00:56:35.500 that's obvious, right? Wouldn't you agree with me? We're not mind readers. But certainly there's no

00:56:42.160 indication whatsoever that he doesn't think it's true. And if people can't say what they believe

00:56:49.280 to be true in public without losing their business, I mean, this is not like he insulted somebody.

00:56:56.100 He didn't call somebody out. He didn't attack somebody. There's no hate speech here. This is

00:57:02.420 literally love. Basically, Mike Lindell loves his country. He thinks there's a problem. He thinks that

00:57:11.020 he wants to step in and fix it at great personal expense. Great personal expense. Now, I feel as

00:57:19.780 if even if you think everything that Mike Lindell says is inaccurate, and it might be, I feel like this

00:57:27.260 is just the worst thing in the world. That this poor guy can't, you know, say what he wants in public

00:57:33.220 without getting boycotted. All right. But then, of course, he's got more problems because Dominion is

00:57:39.860 suing him for $1.3 billion in defamation. And this raises a really interesting question.

00:57:48.960 Let me say you're Dominion, and you're making this decision. Do you have to sue this guy?

00:57:55.660 I feel like you kind of have to, right? Because, you know, just as Mike Lindell has free speech, or should

00:58:04.380 have, to say whatever he wants, so long as he thinks it's true, and he's not hurting anybody directly,

00:58:10.500 then Dominion also has a perfect right to defend their company and sue him for defamation.

00:58:17.720 So I feel that Kohl's and Bed Bath & Beyond and all those, it's just not their fight, right? You guys

00:58:28.220 need to stay out of the fight, because this is between Dominion and Mike Lindell, and that's a fair

00:58:34.360 fight. I don't think that Dominion knows how fair this fight is yet. So here's the part that I like

00:58:43.500 about this story. I wouldn't underestimate Mike Lindell. That feels like a terminal mistake.

00:58:55.000 Because I don't know how the law works, but maybe somebody who does, I always have a lot of lawyers

00:59:00.360 on these live streams. Somebody who's a lawyer, there we go. I'm seeing it in the comments. Who's

00:59:07.720 saying this? Discovery process, baby. Doesn't this open up Mike Lindell and his lawyers? Doesn't this

00:59:17.120 give them the ability to look into Dominion's software? Wouldn't they have to have the right

00:59:23.220 to audit them, end to end, to be able to defend themselves in court? Or, and this is the part that

00:59:33.320 maybe you'd have to be a lawyer to know. Or, can the lawyers for Dominion so narrowly restrict

00:59:42.320 their case that Lindell would have to prove his allegations without benefit of looking at their

00:59:49.980 software? Because that might be the case. It might be that he's making a claim that you can debunk without

00:59:56.320 ever looking into the code. In which case, Dominion is playing it right. Now, if Dominion can avoid

01:00:04.200 any discovery, if they can avoid showing, you know, opening their kimono and showing all their

01:00:12.360 proprietary stuff, then they've made the right decision business-wise. It's exactly what they

01:00:18.100 should do business-wise if they can show their stuff. Or, if they can show their stuff and there's

01:00:25.560 no problem. I don't know if they can do it. Seems impossible. Somebody's saying on Bannon that Lindell

01:00:36.000 said that was his strategy to get Dominion to sue him. He has said that, but that's also the sort of

01:00:42.940 thing you say after you find yourself in that situation. So, I don't question the fact that he

01:00:49.640 may have created an accidental advantage. I think it does put him in a stronger position than maybe

01:00:57.060 the public is aware of. Because here's the thing. Do you think Mike Lindell sold a zillion

01:01:07.000 my pillows because he's not persuasive? He's persuasive. In fact, I told you once that I was

01:01:15.100 going to do a live stream in which I did nothing but tell you how good his technique is for persuading.

01:01:21.860 He uses every known method science knows for persuasion in his commercials, and it's jaw-droppingly

01:01:30.020 effective. That's why he's so rich. He's so good at it. What would happen if you put Mike

01:01:36.920 Lindell in a courtroom with a jury full of MyPillow customers, of which at least three or four of them

01:01:45.260 are going to be MyPillow customers, right? I mean, he sold a lot of pillows. I would love to see a

01:01:54.020 lawyer versus Mike Lindell, but you'll probably have his lawyers arguing the case, but I'd love to see

01:02:00.580 him on trial. Because while I don't... I guess his video that got taken down, of course, in which he

01:02:11.160 made lots of allegations, his video was viewed 110 million times. The Super Bowl only gets 90-some

01:02:26.140 million people viewers. The Super Bowl. Mike Lindell got 110 million people to watch his video about the

01:02:34.680 election. All right. If you're Dominion voting systems, and you're going into a persuasion battle

01:02:42.980 with a guy who just made a video that 110 million people watched, he had just made a fortune selling

01:02:50.080 a frickin' pillow, I gotta watch that. I mean, you wanna watch this fight. So, on the surface,

01:03:00.980 you'd say to yourself, wow, $1.3 billion defamation suit. Looks like Dominion has all the cards. They're

01:03:07.160 really gonna take Mike Lindell out. And they might. That is one of the possibilities. You know, MyPillow

01:03:13.860 could be in a business a year from now. That's very much a possibility. The other possibility

01:03:19.760 is that they have no idea how much skill Mike Lindell possesses. They just don't know.

01:03:28.320 Because if they think those pillows sold themselves, well, they've got some surprises coming.

01:03:35.060 So, while I do not endorse the argument that Mike Lindell makes about the election, the stuff I've seen

01:03:43.360 didn't pass my sniff test, you can't take away from him his skill. This is gonna be fun. And it might

01:03:52.400 be the first and only opportunity we have for a little bit more transparency about the digital part

01:03:59.360 of the process. Mike Lindell might be doing for the country one of the greatest things that's ever

01:04:06.400 been done for the country. And a personal, great personal sacrifice. That's happening right in front

01:04:12.820 of you. I mean, it's easy to imagine this, oh, he's a gadfly, crazy guy, wasting his money, yada, yada,

01:04:19.560 yada. It would be easy to make that argument. But also, I believe it is completely true,

01:04:25.380 he's a patriot. I think that feels unambiguously true. Again, can't read minds, but that feels safe,

01:04:33.200 right? He's a patriot. I think that's unambiguous. Wants to help the country? At personal risk. Do you

01:04:41.820 think, do you really think that Mike Lindell thought he would sell more pillows by challenging

01:04:46.900 the election? I don't think so. I don't believe there was at any point he said, I'm cleverly gonna,

01:04:52.500 you know, raise the profile of my brand and sell more pillows. No. He's a patriot. He just put 65

01:05:01.520 million dollars of revenue in just one year on the line for you. For you. You American citizens and

01:05:12.180 also citizens of the world. I feel like this is one of the greatest services anybody ever did for the

01:05:21.840 American public at one of the greatest costs. Now, of course, you'd put military members above this,

01:05:28.480 but within the civilian world, and first responders, of course, but within the sort of suit-wearing

01:05:35.140 civilian world, this might be one of the greatest sacrifices anybody ever made for the country.

01:05:39.860 Will it pay off? I don't know. Probably not, if I had to guess. I would bet against it paying off

01:05:46.780 in terms of, you know, producing a benefit greater than the cost. But I really appreciate this.

01:05:55.920 I really appreciate this, that he's doing this at personal risk. And I hope it gives us more

01:06:02.520 visibility into the election, and that would be one of the greatest services ever for this country.

01:06:08.380 All right. That is what I wanted to talk about for today. I know it's a little bit harder to

01:06:19.520 have fun with the news when Trump is not in it. But maybe this, you know, this, these lawsuits with

01:06:27.320 the taxes and stuff will bring us something. And I guess Trump is also going to be a featured speaker

01:06:32.540 at CPAC. So I don't know when that is, but it's going to happen soon. And that'll give us more news

01:06:41.220 to talk about. Well, thank you. I love you right back. Thoughts on Merrick Garland? Yeah, I watched only

01:06:53.420 a little bit of Merrick Garland talk, and he doesn't seem capable. Did you have that? Did you have that

01:06:59.980 impression? I feel as if age has caught up to him. He looks not sharp. Let's just say that Garland

01:07:09.560 is the Joe Biden of the attorney generals. Yeah. Now, it could be that I'm judging his mannerism

01:07:23.060 and not his brain. In all likelihood, his brain is fine. And his, just his mannerism was misleading.

01:07:32.900 But I don't know if you want an attorney general who presents himself as not mentally capable.

01:07:39.820 Because that's how he looked to me. And I say that not as an insult. And I do believe I would say this

01:07:46.380 no matter what party he was with, right? I don't think it has anything to do with politics. When people

01:07:52.080 speak that haltingly, yeah, and they have the sort of Joe Biden presentation. With Biden, you could say

01:07:59.100 maybe has something to do with his speech difficulty. I guess he had a stutter when he was younger that

01:08:05.500 he's conquered, to his credit. And, you know, maybe there's something there with Garland too, that makes

01:08:12.820 him speak in that halting way. But it doesn't give me confidence at all. Does not give me confidence.

01:08:19.840 Yeah, he looked. That's the word. Befuddled. He looked and acted befuddled. And I don't think

01:08:27.680 there's anything you want less in your appointed top government officials than to appear befuddled

01:08:35.780 in a situation which you've prepared for vigorously. Keep in mind, he prepared for this vigorously.

01:08:44.440 One assumes, right? I wasn't there, but you don't just go walking into these hearings. You prepare.

01:08:52.060 And he was prepared and still acted befuddled. That's not a good look. And by the way,

01:09:00.440 if the Republicans decided to vote against his nomination because he seemed to be fuddled,

01:09:06.740 that's fair. Even if, you know, he doesn't have a background that would suggest any problem,

01:09:15.340 just the fact that he couldn't pull off the hearing itself is all you need. I mean, you don't need a

01:09:20.940 better reason than that. All right. Somebody said Barrett just walked in. I don't think she did.

01:09:30.760 Uh, that's all for now. I'll talk to you tomorrow. All right. YouTubers still with me for a moment. Uh,

01:09:43.880 early onset befuddlement.

01:09:46.560 The central committee needs another puppet, somebody says. Yeah.

01:09:58.760 Um, uh, Scott, how would you know the difference between code used on election day versus updated

01:10:05.920 code? A good question. I would leave this to the programmers to answer. A lot of things have

01:10:11.900 logs. So if there was a change in software, it might be logged in some file. Uh, that doesn't

01:10:20.160 mean that couldn't be falsified, but it's the right question. The right question is, is it even possible

01:10:25.420 to look at, look at, uh, like a, an image that was relevant on election day? Yeah, that is the right

01:10:33.620 question. I think it might be, but I don't know that for sure. Um, somebody say,

01:10:41.900 Michigan erased the logs and Antrim. Yeah. So certainly logs can be erased.

01:10:49.260 And what, what would you do if you were on the jury? Let's say you were on the jury. I don't know

01:10:53.800 if it'll be a jury trial for Mike Lindell. Guessing it will be, I don't know. Um, or does it always

01:11:00.340 have to be in these cases? I don't know the law on that. So, and I forgot what my point was. Doesn't

01:11:08.480 matter. Uh, LinkedIn takes down racist, anti-white male stuff. Yeah. You know, the anti, uh, white

01:11:24.200 people stuff is, is getting a bit on a hand at the moment.

01:11:33.780 Podcast recommendations. Tim Ferriss is probably the best podcast. You probably already watched

01:11:40.220 Joe Rogan. Um, you're moving toward debunking COVID deaths with your flu question. Don't you?

01:11:48.280 No, no, that's what my critics are saying. And that's, that's dumb. Frankly, that's dumb. Uh, there

01:11:56.820 is the questions I'm asking about the regular flu and whether or not it's, uh, appropriately coded

01:12:03.160 do not apply to something that apparently has killed half a million people in a year, right?

01:12:10.720 The whole point about the seasonal flu is why doesn't the observation fit the science? COVID,

01:12:17.680 the observation fits the science, right? They say a whole bunch of people are dying. I've heard of

01:12:24.580 personally a whole bunch of people dying, celebrities of dying from it. No, anything I say about the

01:12:31.780 seasonal flu does not prove anything about COVID very much does not. That's what my critics say. And

01:12:38.960 that's just, there's no logical connection. Um, do I recommend, recommend Stefan Molyneux? You know,

01:12:47.520 I don't, he got kicked off of social media. I don't even know where you'd find his stuff, but he is,

01:12:53.960 he's very talented. If you can take an edgier, uh, let's say, uh, a, a presentation, which gives no,

01:13:03.020 um, credit to wokeness. Definitely good content. Yeah. Brett Weinstein. I hear he's good.

01:13:17.900 Um, the Peter principal doctors. Now, you know what I think it is, is that I think doctors,

01:13:23.740 if you become really smart at one field, I feel as though it can fool you into thinking

01:13:31.240 you know more than you know. Uh, the young Turks, I don't recommend them. No.

01:13:43.720 Somebody's saying I, I beat up Stefan. That's not true. We did have a good conversation. He's fun to

01:13:49.160 talk to you because even when you disagree with Stefan Molyneux, uh, his point of view is going

01:13:56.360 to be well, well presented. So at least it's always a fair fight. Um, all right. That's all I got for

01:14:05.400 now. And I will talk to you. Yeah. Sticks, sticks and hammer. That would be a great one. I always

01:14:10.520 watch him. Uh, Tim pool. Yeah. Excellent. All right. That's enough for now. I'll talk to you later.

01:14:19.160 Thank you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 23, 2021

Episode 1294 Scott Adams： Trump Taxes, Humanized Mice, Irrational Doctors, and Fauci Hatred

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript