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 0.86

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 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.99

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 0.83

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, 0.53

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 0.69

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 0.99

00:46:12.560 healthy. Obviously there's something wrong with the bubble boy in the sense that doesn't have the same 0.53

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, 0.82

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. 1.00

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

Summary

Transcript