Episode 1309 Scott Adams： Cuomo, Coronavirus, Crisis, Corpulence, China and Coffee
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 18 minutes
Words per Minute
143.7727
Summary
Scott Adams and his co-host Sarah Abdurrahmerson discuss the latest in the scandal-filled world of Governor Andrew Cuomo, Milo Yiannopoulos' coming out as straight, and the latest on the immigration crisis.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey everybody, gather round. It's time. It's the best time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams
00:00:11.680
and the Simultaneous Sip. Have you enjoyed it yet? Are you new? Well, if you're new,
00:00:18.720
you're about to be introduced to one of the greatest things of your entire life.
00:00:23.840
Yeah, it's called the Simultaneous Sip. And if you came unprepared, well, let me tell you what
00:00:29.700
you need. You'll have to hurry. All you need is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tank, a chalice, a canteen,
00:00:34.940
a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me
00:00:42.060
now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything
00:00:45.680
better, way better, super better. Let's do it right now. Yeah, that was good. Now, some of you
00:00:59.620
might be concerned if you start the Simultaneous Sip a little bit late, there is a grace period.
00:01:06.240
Yeah, there's a 10-second grace period. If you get your sip in anywhere in that 10 seconds,
00:01:12.660
simultaneous. All right, the biggest news of the day, by far, is that Milo Yiannopoulos has come
00:01:21.280
out as straight. Well, I'm not making that up. Milo Yiannopoulos just came out as straight. He's
00:01:31.300
decided that he's going to push conversion therapy, where you use your religion to, let's say, erase
00:01:41.620
the gay. I'm not sure how he would put it. I don't think Milo is the most credible person in the world
00:01:50.280
right now, but he's getting some attention, and he's good at that. So, anyway, for entertainment
00:02:00.740
Just to be clear, I don't think conversion therapy is a good idea. All right. Well, here's a surprising
00:02:13.900
story. I don't mean to shock you, because I know you didn't see this coming, but sit down. Sit down. I
00:02:24.980
have some surprising news for you. There is a sixth accuser of Governor Cuomo. Yeah, who saw that coming?
00:02:37.460
It's almost as shocking as if, I'm going to go out on a real thin branch right now, I feel a prediction
00:02:48.740
coming on. Seventh accuser. Now, I don't want you to think I'm psychic, because I'm not, but I can see
00:03:03.340
the future sometimes, and I feel there's just a seventh accuser. I feel there is, but will we from
00:03:13.500
the seventh accuser? I think the odds are pretty good. Probably tomorrow. Oh, my God.
00:03:23.520
And with all this badness going on, people are trying to talk to Governor Cuomo's ex, his ex-girlfriend,
00:03:31.700
or was it wife? I guess girlfriend, Sandra Lee. And the headline that I saw said that she was seen
00:03:37.820
pumping gas in Malibu. She was pumping gas while her ex-boyfriend was trying to
00:03:46.640
do something that sounds a lot like pumping gas. Have you noticed that the G on the end of pumping
00:03:57.180
sort of disappears the G at the beginning of gas? If you say it closely, or you say it carefully,
00:04:06.280
it sounds like what Sandra Lee was doing. She was pumping some gas. But if you were to say this
00:04:16.580
about her ex-boyfriend, Cuomo, it would sound different. He was pumping gas. Yeah, he was
00:04:23.920
pumping gas. Say it quickly. It's funnier if you say it to yourself. Well, we have a situation on the
00:04:32.080
border. It's not a crisis. Darn you. It's certainly not a crisis. How could you think
00:04:40.800
it's a crisis? No, it's a challenge. We're told by the Biden administration, it's definitely
00:04:47.860
a challenge, not a crisis. And the resources are overwhelmed. So it's an overwhelming challenge,
00:04:55.360
but not a crisis. And I feel better about that. Do you remember when kids were in cages and it was
00:05:04.560
a crisis? I'm so glad all that's behind us, because now it's just kids in containers with an
00:05:11.160
overwhelming challenge. And I feel a lot better about that, even though there are way more people
00:05:17.200
involved. Jen Psaki said an interesting thing, and I refuse not to put a P in front of her name.
00:05:25.100
She's Psaki. You could call her Jen Psaki, if you like. But if you're going to put an unnecessary
00:05:32.700
consonant in the front of your name, I think I can pronounce it. Don't tell me what's silent.
00:05:39.740
Don't tell me to shut up about the silent P. I'm like, you know, Pierce Morgan. I want my freedom
00:05:48.720
of speech. If I want to pronounce the P in front of Psaki, well, damn it, I'm going to do it. So Jen
00:05:55.020
Psaki, or Psaki, if you like, said that most immigrants are being turned away. What? How can the Biden
00:06:06.360
administration turn away anybody? Are there, what, good immigrants and bad ones? Because it's almost as
00:06:14.700
if Biden is saying that some of them are good people. And I guess they get to come in. But some
00:06:24.480
of them, even the Biden administration is turning away. In fact, most. I would like to hear in one of
00:06:33.180
Joe Biden's many press conferences. He has several a day. You probably haven't heard of them. You
00:06:39.980
probably think there have been none. But I'd like to hear Joe Biden describe the philosophy.
00:06:48.740
What is it that would let you say some of the immigrants can get in and some of them cannot?
00:06:55.780
What exactly is the philosophy? Trump had a very clean philosophy. America first. That pretty much
00:07:05.560
takes care of all of it, doesn't it? America first. Are we done? Is there anything else that
00:07:11.580
needs to be explained? And pretty clear. But with Biden's policy of, you know, being kind and more
00:07:21.260
human, I guess, which we all like on a conceptual level. Conceptually, who doesn't like being kind?
00:07:32.320
It's a pretty good idea if you can afford it. But I think Biden needs to somehow articulate why some
00:07:40.400
people can get in and some can't. Now, I know there would be a distinction between the people who are
00:07:45.280
claiming asylum. But do we think the asylum claims are real? I mean, not really. Do we? Some of them
00:07:53.540
surely are real. But I would think the vast majority of them are just people gaming the system.
00:07:59.700
So do we let the people in who game the system? It's like, oh, okay, you're part of the good
00:08:09.040
I don't know. It feels like you either need to let people in or not let them in. It's a weird place
00:08:17.060
to put a dividing line. And I'm sure Biden will be talking all about that in his many, many press
00:08:24.820
conferences that happened, really. Don't they? Aren't there press conferences?
00:08:29.040
Here's a story that's got me wondering about things. There was a Nevada man who on Twitter
00:08:40.380
mentioned that he had tracked his mail-in ballot and found that somebody else had signed it
00:08:48.340
and voted for him. So he never got his mail-in ballot, but somebody did. And somebody voted for
00:08:56.440
him, allegedly. Now, the question I asked is, what? Isn't there something wrong with this
00:09:05.660
story? There's something wrong with the story, right? How in the world do you check to see if
00:09:11.740
your ballot got in? Well, apparently, at least Clark County, and I've heard other states and other
00:09:19.340
places, they do have a portal, a website, where you can go and you can check to see if your vote
00:09:25.260
got in. And doesn't it feel like this is a whole category of thing that we should understand as a
00:09:33.100
public, if you're engaged in the questions about voter fidelity and transparency and stuff? We've
00:09:42.200
all been talking about this endlessly. But how come you and I don't know whether you can check your
00:09:49.900
mail-in vote everywhere? Or how many places can you? And if you can check, is it easy? Do you just
00:09:58.300
go online and put in your social security number and it tells you if they got your vote? And this
00:10:04.500
gentleman who was sharing this experience showed me that I think they had emailed him when he
00:10:10.740
contacted and said there was some problem. They emailed him the actual signature of the person who voted on
00:10:16.260
his ballot. It was a different person. Now that's just one example, right? Just one example.
00:10:27.780
Whoever's saying I can't hear you, you know the problem's on your end, right? There are a lot of
00:10:35.260
comments going by. It looks like they can hear me. So work it out. That's funny. It's all about you.
00:10:46.740
That one person who can't hear me. Let's stop everything. Everybody just stop. There's one
00:10:52.200
person who can't hear me. I think we're going to have to just pause until he figures it out.
00:10:58.220
All right, let's go on. So my question is this. If we were to simply publicize all the places that
00:11:06.900
have portals where you can check to see if your vote got counted. Now, I don't believe you can check
00:11:14.280
to see if your vote was tabulated for the right candidate because that would be crossing the line
00:11:21.420
into knowing who voted for what. I think you can't do that. But you can tell if your vote was counted
00:11:28.720
if your ballot got in. So why don't we do that? Why don't we publish? Just pick a county or pick a place
00:11:39.560
where you think there might have been a problem and just publish the portal. I've never seen it.
00:11:46.260
Have you? Have you seen any news report? It probably exists, but I haven't seen one where somebody says,
00:11:53.060
hey, by the way, did you know you could check to see if your vote got in. And here's the address.
00:11:59.820
Just click here, put in whatever, probably social security number. I'm just guessing. And you could
00:12:04.860
see if your vote got counted. Now, there are people who believe they did not vote who would find out
00:12:12.260
their vote got counted. How many of them are there? Wouldn't you like to know? How many of you,
00:12:20.440
let me ask you, how many of you who voted checked on the portal to make sure, if it was a mail-in vote,
00:12:28.460
to make sure that your mail-in vote was received? Somebody says it's not social security number.
00:12:34.600
It might be address or name or something. I'm seeing lots of yeses. Oh, a number of you did.
00:12:43.460
Sure did. Oh, well, I'm quite surprised. How many of you who checked found out that somebody voted
00:12:50.440
who wasn't you? So, just so we don't get confused in the comments. So, stop answering all prior
00:12:58.820
questions. We'll give it a moment. Forget answering all prior questions. The only question is, if you
00:13:06.860
checked, did you find that somebody voted and it wasn't you? Is there anybody else who found a
00:13:15.740
problem when they checked? So far, I'm only seeing that people had no problem. They checked and their
00:13:22.540
vote was there. Yeah, received is not the same as counted, but at least we can find out if it got
00:13:30.960
received. Somebody says a driver's license is required. Maybe. A lot of people did check. I'm
00:13:41.940
surprised. I'm actually impressed. All right. Well, I can't tell from your answers if anybody found any
00:13:47.800
problems. But certainly, wouldn't that make you feel more comfortable if a lot of people checked
00:13:52.860
and there were no problems? I would like to know that. Speaking of voting irregularities, which I
00:14:01.840
must tell you, no court, have I mentioned that no court has found any, any proof of widespread voter
00:14:13.840
fraud. We all understand that, right? No court, no court in the land has found widespread voter fraud
00:14:22.620
proof. Now, they haven't looked for it, which seems important, but I will get banned from social media if
00:14:31.200
I don't tell you that they haven't found it. They also haven't looked for it, which could be a big
00:14:38.360
reason they haven't found it, right? But early on in the process when people were questioning the
00:14:47.020
election, I told you that I was aware of some stronger evidence that had not come out yet.
00:14:58.480
But Matt Brainerd, who probably is the most credible among the people looking into this stuff,
00:15:07.580
says that he got delayed a little bit, but he's got a report coming out about Nevada in which he
00:15:12.820
claims, he claims by tweet, we haven't seen it yet, just a claim. He says, don't kick me off of social
00:15:20.060
media, because I'm not claiming this. Not me. I'm just saying somebody did. That his report on Nevada
00:15:29.380
will show that there are more fraudulent votes than the margin of victory. Now, that doesn't mean the
00:15:36.500
election was rigged. But this is the claim. Now, people have been mocking me for months, saying,
00:15:49.060
may I do an impression of my critics? I'd like to do a dead-on impression of all of my critics.
00:15:57.460
Oh, Scott, where's that good evidence you said was coming? Where's all that good evidence?
00:16:03.340
I think that was a pretty good impression. And my answer has been, hold. It is so hard
00:16:14.080
to have any kind of self-control in this world, talking about politics. And do you know how much
00:16:20.520
self-control it takes for me to just say, yeah, no court. Not a single court has found proof of any
00:16:30.260
widespread fraud. And I'll just keep repeating that. But in my mind, I'm thinking, hold, hold,
00:16:41.640
hold, hold. And this is what I'm waiting for. So I've been waiting for the Matt Brainerd stuff.
00:16:49.580
Now, if the Matt Brainerd stuff produces nothing credible, then I will say in public that I was
00:17:00.800
misled. I was misled and wrong, completely wrong, that there might be stronger evidence that you've
00:17:08.440
not seen yet. All right? So hold me to that. I think people like me should be held to account
00:17:16.280
for making a statement that strong and not being able to back it up. Because I made a pretty strong
00:17:24.640
statement that so far, I have not been able to back up. And if, and I'll, just to make it as
00:17:32.820
definitive as possible, if the Matt Brainerd stuff doesn't produce anything that looks credible to
00:17:41.560
you, then I will just, I'll just say, okay, I guess, I guess I was completely wrong that there
00:17:47.420
wasn't anything that I saw that you hadn't seen yet that would make me think there was something
00:17:53.160
there. So we'll wait for that. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I will, I'll step up to that.
00:17:59.100
Here's an interesting story. Lindsey Graham is calling part of the COVID relief package
00:18:05.260
reparations. Because part of it allows that black farmers can get up to 120% of their loan forgiven.
00:18:16.460
Who made that 120%? That was a pretty bold, whoever came up with 120% instead of all your debt is
00:18:25.040
forgiven. I mean, I get why they're doing it to, you know, create a little stimulus and help people
00:18:31.040
get back on their feet. But it was an interesting way to do it. So somebody got away with something
00:18:36.160
there. So Lindsey Graham calls it reparations, which of course is provocative. But let me ask you
00:18:44.120
this. Have you seen anybody who favors the bill, and favors that part of the bill, explain it? Has
00:18:55.160
anybody been on TV to explain why they favor this specific part of the bill? Have you seen that? I
00:19:01.800
haven't seen it. Shouldn't we be asking somebody who voted for it, or who favored it, or who put it in
00:19:08.200
there to just give us their argument? And I would like them to give us an argument in a way that didn't
00:19:15.200
sound racist. Because maybe they could do it. Maybe they could do it. But if what happened is they snuck
00:19:24.360
some reparations in there, without calling it reparations, it would feel a little bit dishonest,
00:19:31.680
wouldn't it? Because I'm not even engaging with the question of whether reparations should or should
00:19:39.160
not be paid. That's an argument that can be had. And I've been actually quite, let's say, I've been
00:19:47.400
open to that argument, far more so than I imagine some of my audience. But if you sneak it in, and you
00:19:56.300
hide it, and you don't call it what it is, that's a different problem. To me, it just looks like
00:20:03.420
racism. I don't see how you could call it anything else. Now, you could say it is racism, but it's
00:20:09.640
reparations, and so it's adjusting for a past wrong, and so therefore it's the good kind of racism.
00:20:16.280
But I think we have to be careful about labeling some kinds of racism good. It seems like that could
00:20:23.500
be a problem down the road. All right. And of course, Biden will be talking all about this in
00:20:29.840
his press conferences. Won't he? Won't he? Here are some of the, you know, the coronavirus pandemic
00:20:38.580
has created more fake news and bad beliefs than anything I've seen recently. Let me just run down
00:20:46.800
a partial list of the things that people are still disagreeing on. All right. So you, of course,
00:20:54.960
have strong opinions of which of these is true or false. I'll just run down the list. We still don't
00:21:01.460
have general agreement of whether masks even work. So I won't get into the mask argument. I'm just saying,
00:21:10.060
how did we get to this point without knowing if masks work? Are you kidding me? Now, I've been
00:21:18.580
pro-mask since the beginning. Even when the CDC and the Surgeon General were saying, don't wear them,
00:21:27.760
I was saying, yeah, I'm sure they work. That's dumb. We should wear them. So I've been pro-mask the
00:21:33.600
whole time. But I'm going to tell you something that I've never said directly. It's not because
00:21:40.360
I'm sure they work. I think it's more likely they work than not. If I had to guess, if I had to put my
00:21:48.020
money on it, I would say they must work a little bit. But that's not why I'm pro-mask. That's not
00:21:55.800
why. It's the persuasion part of it. I have to admit. The persuasion part. Because when you've got
00:22:04.540
a mask on, you also are just constantly reminded that you're in this situation. The moment everybody
00:22:14.080
takes their masks off, you will instantly forget about social distancing. Instantly. Now, somebody has
00:22:22.640
said you put the mask on and it causes people to get closer to people than they would have because
00:22:28.200
they feel safe. Well, that's a judgment call. I don't know if anybody studied that. And I can see
00:22:34.080
a reasonable person would think that's a big factor. But my observation and my belief with some
00:22:42.900
understanding of persuasion is that wearing the masks is what allowed us to do social distancing.
00:22:50.300
I just think that the moment we took them off, we would just forget. We would just forget. And
00:22:59.080
watch the minute they come off. You know, everybody's going to be hugging again. It's going to be
00:23:03.880
instant. Because I think the human instinct for touching is just too damn strong. If you don't have
00:23:11.820
something that you're wearing on your body, you're going to shake hands. Right? Let me put it in
00:23:20.100
the simplest possible terms. If I don't have a mask, and I'm talking to somebody who doesn't have a mask,
00:23:26.880
and they put out their hand to shake hands, and neither of us have a mask, probably going to shake
00:23:33.520
hands. Right? Even if I think about it, I probably shouldn't, but I'm going to do it anyway. Suppose we
00:23:39.960
both have masks. We both have masks, somebody puts out their hand. That's happened, right? You've
00:23:46.580
probably been in that situation. And what do I do? I say, social distancing. And everybody goes, oh, okay.
00:23:54.260
Immediately. Having the mask on allows me to turn down the handshake. You get that, right? Now,
00:24:02.460
there's a similar argument going on in Texas, because the government of Texas, the state, decided that they
00:24:08.500
would drop their mandates. But individual businesses might still want to require masks and distancing.
00:24:16.020
So now the pressure is on the individual company. They've got to enforce this thing. They don't have
00:24:20.940
cover from the state anymore. That could make a difference. So we'll see. We'll just keep an eye on
00:24:27.020
that. I think Texas did the right thing. In my opinion, the pandemic is over. You know,
00:24:33.400
plenty of people will still die. That's a tragedy. But I think the pandemic is over. Because at this
00:24:40.300
point, we know, if you're under 40, and you don't have a high BMI, your risk is now not much bigger
00:24:49.520
than just the risk of life, you know, just getting hit by a car and stuff. So I feel for people under 40
00:24:57.560
who have, you know, good health and low BMI, especially, it's kind of over. We're still going
00:25:03.840
to go through the formality of it to mop things up. But the hard part's over.
00:25:11.860
Here's some more resilient myths. It was just the flu, that there was no pandemic at all. It was just
00:25:17.960
the flu. And again, I'm not giving you an opinion of which is true and not. It's just a miracle,
00:25:24.140
remarkable, or just remarkable, I guess, that there are so many things we still don't agree
00:25:28.900
on as people. We don't agree that the lockdowns worked. Probably will never agree on that. I think
00:25:37.360
they didn't. I think, I think my personal guess is that it did make sense to stop the mass gatherings.
00:25:45.980
Probably never made sense to close schools, probably never made sense, at least maybe in the beginning
00:25:50.860
when we didn't know much. It probably never made sense once we knew a little bit to stop retail
00:25:56.800
stores, right? Now, how about gyms? That's sort of an edge case. I suppose you could say people would
00:26:04.980
just, you know, they could not go if they're worried. But, you know, at this point, it does look
00:26:12.940
like the lockdowns were not, were a little too aggressive. That seems clear. We don't agree
00:26:19.080
whether Sweden was a success story or not. We don't agree on hydroxychloroquine still. I don't think
00:26:25.960
it's anything at this point. I thought it had some potential in the beginning. But at this point,
00:26:32.880
at this point, if you don't know for sure that hydroxychloroquine worked, it probably didn't.
00:26:40.160
Just saying. There's also the belief that the mass and the lockdowns are part of a larger plan
00:26:48.520
by shadow elites to train the public to put up with anything and grab power. That one's crazy.
00:26:59.220
All right. Some of these, I could imagine that my opinion would be wrong. For example, I can easily
00:27:05.600
imagine that my mask opinion would be wrong. Easily, right? That's the kind of thing where you could
00:27:11.800
be wrong. I could easily imagine that I'm wrong about Sweden, wrong about hydroxychloroquine, wrong
00:27:19.020
about lockdowns. I could be wrong about all that stuff. It's all possible. Let me tell you what I'm not
00:27:24.280
wrong about. That it's a big plot to grab power. I'm not wrong about that. It's definitely not
00:27:33.300
a gigantic scheme to grab power. That's the only thing I can say with complete certainty. Everything
00:27:40.200
else is sort of up in the air. Here's another one that I heard today. And I'll say, I'll ask for a fact
00:27:47.400
check on this. So one of the beliefs is that hospitals are over counting COVID because they
00:27:54.460
get reimbursed more for treating COVID people. How many of you believe that to be true? That
00:28:02.560
we're over counting COVID because hospitals have an incentive, a financial incentive to count people as
00:28:10.240
COVID. How many of you believe that? There's a little lag here. Seeing a lot of yeses. Yes, yes, yes. True.
00:28:21.460
Agree. Yes, yes, yes. Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely, says my audience. Here's a comment I got on Twitter. And
00:28:30.060
give me a fact check on this, okay? That hospitals are not, they're not reimbursed based on what disease you
00:28:38.100
had. And as soon as I heard this, I felt stupid. Honestly, I felt stupid. Hospitals don't reimburse
00:28:48.720
based on what disease you had. That's not a thing. That can't be a thing. Here's the second part of
00:28:58.320
that because you're not convinced yet, right? Because you've been reading the reports that that's exactly
00:29:02.500
what they're doing. How many times have you read a news report that says that's exactly what they're
00:29:07.220
doing? They are, in fact, exactly charging more for coronavirus victims, right? You believe that?
00:29:15.900
Don't you believe that's true? Here's the second part of this Twitter comment.
00:29:23.460
Hospitals charge based on the services they provide. To which I said, oh, yeah, that's obviously true.
00:29:34.280
Let me put it this way. Do you think they're going to shove a ventilator down your throat
00:29:41.480
so they can charge a little extra? I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think they are. Do you
00:29:51.380
think that they're going to put you in the, I don't know, the COVID expensive ICU if you don't have
00:29:58.860
COVID? Because they're testing you, right? I don't think any of this is true. I think it's almost a
00:30:08.100
hundred percent belief on the conservative side of the world. And I don't think it's even slightly
00:30:13.960
possible to be true. Now, give me a fact check on this. I could be wrong, right? And I could certainly
00:30:21.100
imagine that in the margin, you know, you could find a situation or, or, you know, a particular
00:30:27.140
patient who is, you know, miscaracterized. I'm sure that's true on individual cases. But as a
00:30:35.840
widespread, like, phenomenon? No. They're charging you for the stuff they do. And the hospital is not
00:30:45.120
doing a bunch of extra stuff, just pretending you have COVID so they can overcharge you.
00:30:52.080
That's not happening. So how many of you just had your head spun around? Probably most of you,
00:31:00.340
you won't change your opinion, because that's how it works. New information doesn't change people's
00:31:05.060
opinion. We're not wired that way. But some of you just said to yourself, what? I just thought that
00:31:14.040
was true. Not only is it probably not true, it's probably not even possible. But fact check me on
00:31:23.540
that. I could be wrong. Here's another one that we really have a case-demic, not a pandemic, because
00:31:31.560
the tests are getting all the, they're, they're too sensitive. So we're picking up people who don't
00:31:37.860
have it. I don't think that's true. How many of you believe that's true? Do you believe that we're
00:31:46.820
vastly, like really a lot, over counting the number of infections, because our tests are too sensitive?
00:31:55.600
And they're, they're over, look at the yeses. Yes, yes, yes. Um, I see some, well, I see some no's. Okay.
00:32:09.220
Uh-huh. I, so here's another one I could use a fact check on, but my current belief is that
00:32:14.620
that's not a thing. I don't think it's a thing. Is it? Because, um, so I know somebody recently who got a
00:32:27.460
false positive. So false positives are definitely a thing. But if you get a false positive, you usually
00:32:35.400
get a second test, don't you? Don't you? If you have no symptoms and you get a positive test, don't you
00:32:43.020
always get a second test? And given that the reporting is by individual, would the second test
00:32:50.200
erase the first test in the database? In other words, if you tested positive, I assume that gets
00:32:56.880
reported to the government, right? The moment you get tested, the government finds out. What happens
00:33:02.000
if a week later you get retested and you find out it was a false positive? You're the same person.
00:33:07.580
Does that cancel out the first test? You'd like to think it would, but do you think they designed
00:33:18.000
it that way? I don't know. I'm not sure they could. So here's what I think. I think the calling it a
00:33:27.400
case-demic is clearly wrong and that, uh, the problem of miscounting the number of, uh, people who
00:33:36.080
actually have it is probably a thing, but it's not, it's not explaining your observation.
00:33:43.440
Meaning that as long as the number of infections was somewhat related to the number of hospitalizations
00:33:51.000
and deaths, you didn't have to worry too much about the accuracy of those tests. Because if they're
00:33:58.400
moving in the same direction as deaths and hospitalizations, you are measuring something.
00:34:06.360
So I'm not sure that it matters too much how accurate those are, uh, at least within the
00:34:12.600
parameters we're talking about. Um, here's another one that people believe you can compare completely
00:34:18.260
different countries and their, and their outcomes and you can learn something. Sweden being the obvious
00:34:23.840
case. But any two countries you compare, you're almost always, uh, making a mistake. I just saw
00:34:31.160
one yesterday. It was another case of, uh, you know, this country didn't do masks and this one did
00:34:37.860
and their curves are identical. All right. And that's on the internet. And you're like, okay, here's a
00:34:43.260
country, no masks. Here's a country that looks sort of like it. They did masks and here's the curve and
00:34:49.800
it's just the same. It takes about five minutes for somebody else to come on Twitter and say,
00:34:57.120
oh, that one you said, don't wear masks. All the big cities wore masks. So in other words,
00:35:03.820
they both wore masks. So every time you think you've hit one of these like golden nuggets, it's like,
00:35:10.620
ah, I found these two countries. They're so similar that I can tell something by comparing them.
00:35:17.360
Never. Never. Zero times is that going to work. Zero times. You should assume every time you see
00:35:25.960
that one country compared to another country, you should assume it's false. And you will be right
00:35:33.540
probably a hundred percent of the time. And if you're only right 90% of the time, you should still
00:35:39.240
default to it's probably not useful. All right. Here's a question that I wonder why I don't know
00:35:48.840
the answer to. Why don't we know more about therapeutics? And I was suggesting that this
00:35:54.720
could be studied fairly quickly. And it would, you do it like this. Let's say you're a researcher
00:36:00.480
and you call some major hospitals that deal with coronavirus. And you say, can you give me your
00:36:06.460
coronavirus, you know, death and hospitalization statistics? So I think you could collect statistics
00:36:12.300
by hospital if you contacted them and you had some, you know, legitimate reason for it. I think you
00:36:18.600
could. Correct me if I'm wrong. And then you ask them what is their dominant therapeutic
00:36:25.980
resource? Like what's the thing they're using and what date did they change from, let's say,
00:36:32.980
one set of recommendations to a new one. Let's say when ivermectin became a thing. Is there a hospital
00:36:40.500
that went from not recommending it to saying you got to use it every time? And then you take those.
00:36:47.940
Now, if you're going to compare two hospitals, how useful would that be?
00:36:53.620
Zero. I just told you comparing any two countries is worthless. Comparing any two hospitals are
00:37:05.180
worthless because there are too many other variables. But suppose you got a bunch of hospitals
00:37:10.140
and you got enough of them so that whatever other differences might be canceling out.
00:37:15.600
And you say, look, all the ones that did ivermectin had great results. All the ones who
00:37:21.220
used something else had less results. And that still won't tell you for sure because there's
00:37:26.540
still too many variables. But it would certainly get you a little closer, right? You'd be maybe
00:37:31.440
crawling toward the truth if you had enough confirmation. And I'm just wondering why I don't
00:37:36.720
see anybody trying to get more information on therapeutics. Because when we keep talking about
00:37:42.280
this amazing drop-off that was unexplained somewhat after the holidays, and of course,
00:37:51.000
smart people said, uh, it's just the holidays. We just stopped traveling and now the curve is going
00:37:57.760
down. But at about the same time, weren't we hearing a lot about therapeutics?
00:38:04.080
Wasn't there a lot of news about therapeutics and the, you know, pre-holiday through today?
00:38:09.700
Okay. So I would imagine that the techniques the hospitals and doctors are using changed quite a
00:38:16.860
bit. Wouldn't you assume that the, uh, let's say the weight, you know, if not the specifics,
00:38:24.340
but at least the weight of what was, uh, diagnosed or prescribed therapeutically, don't you think that
00:38:30.920
looks completely different in February or March to what it did in, say, November? Do you,
00:38:39.420
do you think that on average, the doctors are prescribing pretty much the same stuff
00:38:43.820
therapeutically? I don't know. But I feel like this is a giant thing that we should understand
00:38:50.500
better. And it's studyable. It might be hard, but I think you could tease it out.
00:38:55.860
Um, do we have enough data now to know that in hindsight, and I don't blame anybody for not
00:39:04.320
knowing this earlier, right? Uh, I'll say again that I don't hold our leaders fully responsible
00:39:10.900
for their mistakes because they were all following expert advice and nobody knew what to do. So I'm
00:39:17.400
very soft on leadership mistakes during the pandemic because it was fog of war. Some people guessed
00:39:23.340
right. Some people didn't. The only obvious mistake, well, maybe there are a few obvious mistakes,
00:39:29.440
but one obvious mistake would be Great Britain not doing any, any kind of control. And then of
00:39:35.520
course they had to, they had to back up and put some controls on. Um, but do we know now,
00:39:45.180
now that we have the benefit of more, more information, don't we know that the way we should
00:39:50.600
have handled this is to say that everybody was under 40 and had a healthy BMI and no major
00:39:59.020
comorbidities that they shouldn't have had any restrictions at all? Do we know that yet? Or if
00:40:06.140
we don't know that, let's say under 40 was healthy if you're thin and no comorbidities, do we know
00:40:11.940
enough to know that under 30 would have been better? Because remember, we have to, we have to go all in
00:40:18.640
on the costs and the benefits because you're talking about everything from suicide to economic
00:40:23.720
hardship and the ripple effect through time. You know, maybe a million people will die from the
00:40:29.240
lockdown itself, some are saying, uh, long-term. But at this point, don't we know for sure
00:40:38.340
that we played it wrong? Again, I'm not blaming anybody. We didn't know, but I think we could have
00:40:44.720
kept the over 40s home and the overweight's home and just, and just plugged along. I think we could
00:40:51.980
have. And what would have happened? Here's my second question. It's related. Let's say everybody
00:40:56.940
under 40, just hypothetically, just say everyone under 40 got infected because they didn't do any
00:41:03.780
social distancing and the coronavirus is really sticky. So they just all got it. How much of an extra
00:41:12.220
risk does that put on the people who had to stay home? Well, some, but do you get the same amount
00:41:20.580
of super spreading from a thin person as you do from somebody who is overweight? Why don't you know
00:41:29.260
that? Because you know, there are such things as super spreaders, right? Some people are responsible
00:41:35.460
for most of the spread. It might be a 80-20 kind of situation, just roughly speaking, where 20% of the
00:41:42.400
spreaders are doing 80% of the spreading. Are those super spreaders, are they all over the weight
00:41:52.260
spectrum? Could you be a super spreader and weigh 120 pounds? Because you're not putting out much air
00:42:00.180
and you didn't have as much of an infection. Now, I'm sure there are some thin super spreaders,
00:42:08.340
but everything we're doing is statistical, right? It's all a matter of risk. If you had stayed away
00:42:14.460
from only overweight people, would you have also stayed away from almost all of the super spreaders?
00:42:22.620
Now, of course, you can't make any policy about overweight because who's to say who's overweight,
00:42:27.640
right? And people wouldn't abide by it and it would be discriminatory and it would be fat shaming and it
00:42:34.400
would be everything bad. I mean, look what happened to Chinese American citizens when China got blamed
00:42:42.500
for the coronavirus, right? So it's dangerous stuff. I don't know if you could make a policy about weight
00:42:48.980
because it would tear the country apart. But just statistically, we might know by now that that
00:42:55.880
would have been the way to play it. I don't know. Depends, I think, I think it all depends on the
00:43:00.980
question of whether thin people can be super spreaders. Well, not can be, but how often it
00:43:08.840
happens. If it could happen but rare, then we should have just let the thin people go on with their lives.
00:43:16.640
I asked this question on Twitter, very unofficial, unscientific poll. How many people gained weight or
00:43:23.760
lost weight during the pandemic? Let's see your answers in the comments. Did you gain weight or lose
00:43:30.160
weight? And if you don't mind, show us the pounds. You know, if you gained 20 or lost 20, just show us
00:43:35.760
the pounds. The result was 40% said they gained weight and 20% said they lost weight and the rest were
00:43:44.680
about the same. So in any given year, it feels to me that in any given year, 40% of people gain weight,
00:43:54.880
don't they? All right, I'm looking at your numbers. Lost 20, lost 30, gained 13, lost, gained same, lost,
00:44:07.300
gained up 10, etc. You know, I feel as though this experience really highlighted the importance of
00:44:18.400
framing. Now, I've told you that I'm going to try to use current events to teach you something useful
00:44:25.740
for your actual life. We'll just use the context of current events to do it. Do you think it's because
00:44:32.820
of the topic or the technology? It wasn't my Wi-Fi because I've got two devices running on the same
00:44:38.400
Wi-Fi. Okay, it looks like we're back. All right, looks like we're back. All right, so I was saying
00:44:45.520
that I'm going to try to teach you something useful for your real life based on current events. So it
00:44:51.360
won't be just talking about the news. Try to make it useful. And here's a framing that I think made a big
00:44:57.800
difference. In the beginning of the pandemic, when it was clear that we would spend some amount of time
00:45:03.800
not being able to do our normal lives, I told you that you should see it as an opportunity.
00:45:11.880
Because there might be never another time in your life where you would have, we thought weeks in the
00:45:17.400
beginning, but it turns into months, you would never have this opportunity to work on whatever your
00:45:22.960
side project is, or to get in shape. And that rather than seeing the pandemic as nothing but a
00:45:30.460
problem, you should see that it opened up some opportunities that you would never have any other
00:45:35.960
way, which is the ability to maybe work out more, spend time with your family, do whatever you want,
00:45:41.540
learn language, develop a thing. And when I'm watching the comments go by,
00:45:46.120
I wonder if the mental framing that people brought to this determined whether you lost 40 pounds,
00:45:56.280
as a lot of people did, or whether you just had a bad year.
00:46:03.300
I look at it myself, I started, I think I started two businesses, and I doubled down on my weight
00:46:10.920
training, got a little, got a little extra going here on the muscles. And I looked at it as a once
00:46:17.640
in a lifetime opportunity to do the things I could never otherwise have done. I will bet you that the
00:46:24.920
people who simply said, and it's just just a point of view, hey, opportunity. I'll bet you they're the
00:46:32.500
ones who lost weight. I'll bet you. And, and if you don't think they're simply changing your,
00:46:38.480
your frame or your filter on life, if you don't think that just reframing things can change your
00:46:45.140
actual life, this is a really good example. Now I can't prove it because I don't have the data to do
00:46:51.680
that. But I would really, really strongly suspect that the people who framed their impression of the
00:46:59.500
situation as an opportunity actually came out ahead. Probably did. And if you thought it was nothing
00:47:07.360
but a problem, and you just had to wait it out, that's probably what happened with you. So the George
00:47:19.200
Floyd trial is on. One of the jurors, juror number eight, he said he was concerned that rioters would attack
00:47:29.120
his house if he served on the jury and his name was released. That's how I would have gotten on a jury
00:47:36.720
duty too. In fact, I might have gotten on a jury duty once for something a little bit similar, but
00:47:43.680
I'll tell you about that in a second. If you're in a situation where you could be killed for just
00:47:52.240
sitting on a jury, you don't have to sit on that jury. Nobody can tell you you have to sit on that
00:48:00.740
jury. Let me say it as clearly as possible. If you have a legitimate reason to be afraid for your
00:48:07.360
safety, and I think these jurors do, this is very legitimate, it wouldn't be hard to figure out who
00:48:14.120
these people are, and that there could be some trouble after the fact. So I would say that every
00:48:21.960
one of the jurors should refuse to serve. They should all refuse. And the trial should just get
00:48:28.540
moved to someplace where they're not worried so much about it. So that was a smart juror, because he said
00:48:38.480
something that was honest, it was true. It is what the court wants to hear. They want to know what's
00:48:45.000
honest and true. And props. I would say this was exactly the way to handle it. I'm going to take an
00:48:53.920
aside and tell you about a little experience I had at jury duty. Now, first of all, I have served jury
00:49:01.200
duty, and I believe that you all should. In my opinion, everyone in the country should serve
00:49:08.260
jury duty. At least once. Because your sense of buying into the system is really enhanced by sitting
00:49:16.680
through the whole process. Your sort of faith in the system is restored. Believe it or not, it actually
00:49:22.700
restores your faith in the system. And part of it is that you see so many people who are unambiguously
00:49:29.740
serious about getting the right answer. Right? Everybody there, I mean, the defense attorney wants
00:49:37.100
their, obviously, advocates. But everybody involved, from the citizens, the judge, the people working in
00:49:44.000
the court, they actually legitimately just want to get the right answer. Just want to do what's good
00:49:51.180
for the country. And when you get immersed in that, it does change you. So I highly recommend it. If
00:49:58.720
you've spent your whole life trying to avoid jury duty, just go once. Go once, at least. You've got to
00:50:06.620
feel it. You have to breathe it to really, really buy into it. Here's how I got on a jury duty once.
00:50:15.960
The trial was about an armed person with a gun in a meth lab. So it was a dangerous repeat criminal.
00:50:24.980
Somehow we knew it was a third offense. I don't know if we were supposed to know that. But would
00:50:30.240
have gone to jail forever, and blah, blah, blah, and guns were involved, and it's a violent kind of a
00:50:35.140
person. Now, I was already famous by then. So while all of my other jurors may have had no risk
00:50:43.940
whatsoever, I would be sitting here with my name completely known, because it wouldn't take long
00:50:50.280
for people to figure out who I was. And I would be, if he got convicted, he would know that I voted to
00:50:56.740
convict him. And he's a guy with a criminal with a gun who has used guns. Now, I said to myself,
00:51:04.540
I do not want to, I do not want to be on the other side of a conflict with an armed career
00:51:11.580
criminal. And so when I was, when they asked, is there any reason anybody else thinks they
00:51:17.660
shouldn't serve, I raised my hand and said, I think drugs should be legal. And the judge said, what?
00:51:27.920
I said, yeah. It was a case about a meth lab. I said, yeah. I said, I think drugs should be legal.
00:51:33.100
And the judge said, but do you think you could be impartial anyway? And then I said, I would intend
00:51:43.820
to. As a citizen, I would certainly intend to look at only the facts and the law, but it doesn't work
00:51:52.020
that way. Bias is not the thing that you would intentionally overcome. If you have bias, you're the
00:52:00.520
one who doesn't know it. So I said, I would intend to use the facts and not be biased, but that's not
00:52:07.720
a real thing. People are, people are not designed that way. I could only intend to do it. It's not
00:52:13.820
something I could tell you I could pull off. Well, I get dismissed. Surprise, right? And the process is
00:52:21.840
you go to the bailiff and the bailiff has to sign something to let you leave. And as I'm in the back of
00:52:28.180
the court, they're still talking to the other people, the bailiff whispers to me, he goes,
00:52:33.300
you're in favor of legalizing meth. And he just looks at me like I'm the biggest piece of turd that
00:52:43.900
is ever about at this courtroom. He goes, you're in, you're in favor of legalizing meth.
00:52:51.140
And I looked at him and I said, maybe. And then he looked at me and said, you're a fucking idiot.
00:53:02.940
And then he signed my form and I got in my high-end sports car and I drove back to my mansion
00:53:11.020
education. And I felt really bad for being an idiot. He was still there working his job as a
00:53:18.980
bailiff. But I guess he's the smart one. I guess he's the smart one. So no, it wasn't because I
00:53:28.000
wanted to legalize meth. I just didn't want to be killed. And so I decided that this was a job
00:53:32.960
for a different citizen. Now I'm happy to do my part and even more than my part as a citizen.
00:53:38.500
I appreciate actually stepping up to help wherever I can. But this was not the job for me because I
00:53:47.260
would have been a little higher risk than other people. How many days are we going to go before the
00:53:53.280
Biden administration answers a question about why they haven't done rapid testing?
00:54:00.400
Same problem with the Trump administration. Why the FDA has not allowed the rapid tests.
00:54:05.880
And I guess it's because there's a reporting requirement, which is a dumb reason. So we have
00:54:12.240
to assume there's corruption. There's corruption in the Biden administration. I assume it was the
00:54:17.880
same corruption in the Trump administration because it doesn't seem to be the elected people. It seems to
00:54:23.180
be maybe the career people. And it looks like the FDA. So I'm just going to say as a default operating
00:54:32.160
assumption, the FDA has to be assumed to be corrupt. And only because they haven't even addressed the
00:54:39.000
question. If they ever address it and they have a good reason, I would say immediately, oh, well,
00:54:44.680
that's a pretty good reason. I wish I'd known that. But if they don't even address the question,
00:54:50.760
the default assumption has to be corruption at the FDA. It has to be. You can't run a country without
00:54:57.300
making that assumption. That if you can't get transparency, corruption has to be assumed.
00:55:06.100
Dr. Scott Atlas, who was with the Trump administration, he was provocative because he
00:55:10.400
was more of a open up the economy kind of a guy. He had an opinion piece here that said something
00:55:18.580
really interesting. Apparently, his field and his expertise is a health policy expert.
00:55:28.680
All right. So Dr. Scott Atlas, in addition to being a doctor, specifically, he was a health policy
00:55:35.920
expert, which he refers to as, quote, my field, with a broader scope of expertise than that of
00:55:43.800
epidemiologists and basic scientists. And his point is, that if you're listening to an epidemiologist,
00:55:55.720
you're listening to the wrong guy, even if it's an epidemic.
00:56:01.960
Do you buy that? Because the epidemiologist only knows, you know, his well of information.
00:56:07.980
Whereas somebody like Dr. Scott Atlas has a specific expertise in incorporating everybody
00:56:15.240
as well, and making a decision that looks at all the costs and benefits, which would include
00:56:20.280
everything from the suicides from the lockdowns to the economic stuff, rippling forward, etc.
00:56:28.200
What do you think of his argument? Is that a good argument? That the generalist would be the
00:56:34.560
better person to make the decision than the specialist? Because we just spent a year mocking
00:56:41.500
people who would not believe the specialists, didn't we? Didn't we just spend a year telling
00:56:49.380
each other we're fucking idiots if we don't listen to the specialists? And then he comes along,
00:56:55.260
he says, do you know there's another specialty, which is the person who can evaluate the specialists?
00:57:02.440
And that's him. He's looking smarter every day, isn't he? And so I ask you this. Suppose there was a
00:57:14.620
question in which Bill Gates and doctors, or let's say a doctor, we'll pick a doctor, disagreed.
00:57:23.200
How would you know which one to trust? I'll give you an imaginary situation, but it's not too far from
00:57:29.040
what's happening. Suppose you had a doctor, and let's make this average doctor pretty smart. IQ of
00:57:36.020
140 would be genius level, right? Not Einstein genius, but sort of ordinary genius where you're
00:57:43.880
in the top 2% of your class. You know, that's the sort of, you know, pedestrian genius, not Einstein
00:57:50.740
genius, but smart enough to be a doctor. That's pretty good. Get through medical school. And let's say
00:57:56.260
this doctor did some reading on the topic. So it's a doctor who, you know, dug in a little bit on the
00:58:04.340
topic. And let's say you have a choice of listening to this doctor, really smart, genius, and has looked
00:58:11.940
into the topic. Or Bill Gates. Bill Gates, I don't know what his IQ is, but if you know anything about
00:58:20.460
his backstory, it's probably in the 180 plus range. It's not normal. Let's just say that if Bill Gates
00:58:28.660
had a conversation with somebody who had an IQ of 140, that person would be like a chimpanzee to Bill
00:58:36.520
Gates. Now, I know you don't think that because you don't have an IQ of 180. And so you can't
00:58:45.720
possibly put yourself in his, his point of view. But just as your dog doesn't know how much smarter
00:58:52.520
you are, but you do, right? It's kind of invisible. You can't tell. You really don't know how much
00:59:01.960
smarter 180 is the 140. But let me tell you, it's almost a different species. All right? It's a big
00:59:10.600
difference. Now, let's say that Bill Gates decided to do a deep dive. And he talked to lots of doctors.
00:59:18.220
He talked to this doctor. He talked to other doctors. He read some papers. He did some analysis,
00:59:24.660
et cetera. And let's say they came to different conclusions about what's the best thing to do.
00:59:29.320
Which one of those would you believe? Okay, I'm not done yet. First, you're going to say to me,
00:59:36.940
Scott, a doctor is dedicating his life to helping patients. You can trust a doctor in general,
00:59:45.780
because they dedicate their life to helping patients. So that's pretty good. As opposed to Bill Gates,
00:59:53.280
who's a robber baron, who's dedicating his life to taking over the world, possibly taking all of
01:00:00.140
your money, maybe enslaving you, possibly putting a chip in your body to control you forever like a
01:00:05.940
robot. Did I forget to mention that stuff? Well, here's the thing. Bill Gates walked away from the
01:00:15.860
most profitable thing you could ever imagine, which is running Microsoft. And of course, he could have
01:00:21.260
made any number of investments that would have been wildly profitable. Do you think that talking
01:00:26.420
about the pandemic or the Green New Deal, he's doing for money? Let me say this as clearly as I can.
01:00:38.960
If you think that what Bill Gates is doing in Africa with helping them get toilets,
01:00:44.060
curing malaria, turning 90%, I think, of his fortune toward charity, trying to get other
01:00:51.580
billionaires to do the same, if you think that his interest is making money, I want to say this
01:00:57.480
as clearly as possible. You're fucking stupid. Sorry. You're really stupid if you think Bill Gates
01:01:07.460
is in it for the money. I mean, that's really stupid. Super stupid. I can't even come up with
01:01:15.540
like an argument why that would make any sense. So here's my bottom line.
01:01:25.560
If you can't tell the difference between these two things... Now, by the way, it doesn't mean that
01:01:30.780
Bill Gates would always be right. I'm just saying that if you had to bet, you know, since you don't
01:01:35.320
know who's always right, anybody could be wrong. But if you had to bet, I would bet on Bill Gates
01:01:40.920
every single time. Every time. It's not even close. These two are not close. These are worlds apart
01:01:51.340
in credibility. Worlds apart. So that doesn't mean Bill Gates is right about everything, right?
01:02:04.200
I saw somebody complaining about maybe it's risky to visit China, like for business or for tourism,
01:02:11.700
I guess. Jeff Wasserstrom, he's a China specialist. He was saying that he used to go there all the
01:02:18.180
time, but he's worried about going there and being detained. To which I say, who would go to China?
01:02:25.040
Unless you work for the government and you kind of have to, why would you ever go to China in 2021?
01:02:36.600
Seriously. I would never go to China. Now, in my case, since I talk about anti-Chinese stuff all the
01:02:43.960
time, and I know that they know everybody is there and wherever they are, going to China would be the
01:02:50.020
most dangerous thing I could ever do. I would never go to China because I would assume they would
01:02:55.020
target me. Why wouldn't they? But more generally, I am more prominent, maybe, because I talk about
01:03:03.260
China in public. But why would any of you ever go to China for anything? I mean, rethink that.
01:03:13.540
China is planning, of course, to be technologically dominant and try to develop a whole new technology
01:03:21.420
that competes with the United States technology so that they can control smaller countries in the
01:03:27.160
future, etc., through their technology. And here's the question I ask. Why isn't China already
01:03:32.880
technologically dominant? What is it about the United States that allows us to be so inventive
01:03:42.800
successfully for everything from cars and smartphones and computers and aircraft? It feels like America
01:03:51.540
invents all the big commercial stuff. Now, we have lost control of the chip business. Apparently,
01:03:58.240
Asia just owns microchips, and if we don't get that back, we're in real trouble in the long run.
01:04:03.620
But I guess I'm curious why China hasn't already dominated. Is it just that our system is better?
01:04:13.660
Is that it? Is it just that we have better ways to get capital and there's less corruption or
01:04:20.440
something? Is that what's happening? So I guess I don't fully understand why we've had this long a
01:04:26.780
dominance for so long in the first place. Oh, and of course, the big story is Harry and Meghan.
01:04:33.280
We must talk about them. So Pierce Morgan, he quit because everybody got mad because he didn't believe
01:04:39.780
Meghan Markle. Apparently, he once had a lunch date with her that didn't go well. She ghosted him.
01:04:46.840
It's reported. And so maybe he has some personal feelings about her.
01:04:50.560
But I would like to point out the following thing. I believe that Harry, who looks like a good person,
01:05:01.600
wouldn't you say? Doesn't Harry look like sort of a good soul? Like you'd want to know him?
01:05:08.120
You'd be kind of a cool dude to hang out with? Everybody says so. I think Harry's a good person.
01:05:14.200
There's something he may not know, though. You can't really make a woman happy.
01:05:20.560
And it looks like he's trying really hard to make his wife happy. Now, I think he has to try.
01:05:28.500
But he's still at that age where he thinks it's possible.
01:05:32.940
I've never seen it done. Have you? Have you ever seen a man make a woman happy?
01:05:39.040
That's not a thing. The best you can do is, you know, you can give people what they ask for.
01:05:44.500
You can give people, oh, sorry, what they want.
01:05:49.520
But I've never seen anybody make anybody else happy.
01:05:59.260
Have any of you made your wife happier than she was when you met her?
01:06:05.000
You know, if you asked them, they'd say, well, I'm happy I have a family, or I'm happy I'm mad, I'm happy we got married.
01:06:14.620
So people would answer that. But if you had like a happiness meter, you could just put it on people and measure their happiness.
01:06:22.060
Do you think that your spouse is happier just in general than when you met them?
01:06:33.040
People's happiness pretty much just stays the same.
01:06:36.020
And when I was younger, when I was Harry's age, I didn't know that.
01:06:44.580
And I believed that if I met a woman who had a specific set of complaints, and I could solve those specific set of complaints,
01:07:02.020
Somebody's unhappy because of a specific problem.
01:07:08.380
Nope. Not in the history of humankind has that ever happened once.
01:07:20.680
But it won't make them go from unhappy to happy.
01:07:24.320
So when you see the, you know, people were teasing Meghan Markle for being a princess.
01:07:30.240
You know, she's a wealthy princess actress talking to Oprah.
01:07:35.140
And people are saying, uh, you have the smallest problems I've ever seen.
01:07:44.120
And here's where we learn that it doesn't matter what, it doesn't matter what is happening in Meghan Markle's life.
01:07:53.780
She will be exactly this person in every scenario.
01:08:00.040
They just happen to be the ones in the barrel this time, right?
01:08:05.880
So poor Harry, he's on the treadmill trying to make Meghan Markle happy.
01:08:15.320
Um, I can't decide if I'm happy that Piers Morgan quit over having his opinion, um, so, so attacked.
01:08:30.740
Wasn't he giving an opinion on a show about opinions?
01:08:38.260
Unless they all always agreed with each other until this point.
01:08:41.480
But, um, I don't mind that he's making a statement about this.
01:08:59.840
And I want to run this by you and see if any of you have encountered this.
01:09:02.940
I had a situation recently in which I could hire, hire somebody to do a job temporarily.
01:09:12.660
And, um, because of the unique nature of this, I knew that I could pick somebody who was either black or non-black, right?
01:09:23.740
Just know that there was a job and I had a choice.
01:09:26.220
And I could either probably hire somebody black or probably hire somebody who wasn't.
01:09:30.760
So, now, if I'm judging my own racism, I'm indifferent, right?
01:09:39.460
I had no reason to think there was any, you know, any difference in any of the people.
01:09:55.400
What should I assume about the general sentiment of the average black citizen in the United States in the year 2021 about me?
01:10:09.120
Forget about my opinion about them, which is just fine.
01:10:13.560
Is it fair to assume, statistically speaking, all things being equal, is it fair to assume that if I'm working with a black citizen of the United States and they come to understand who I am and that I said good things about Trump, is that a problem?
01:10:38.320
Would I be doing them a favor by putting them in that awkward situation?
01:10:43.860
Would you want, let me switch around so you can get an example of it.
01:10:48.760
Suppose you are being asked to do a job, you take the job, and then you find out the person who hired you is a pedophile.
01:10:54.300
Well, after you take the job, are you happy that you got a job, or are you unhappy that you accidentally ended up working for a monster?
01:11:09.640
If I were to hire somebody who would be, you know, by the nature of the hiring, would be working with me for a while, would I want them to be uncomfortable?
01:11:17.580
Because I feel that most black Americans would be uncomfortable spending time with me.
01:11:30.760
And have we created a whole new type of discrimination that didn't even exist two years ago?
01:11:38.640
Where you're discriminating against people under the reasonable assumption that they don't like you.
01:11:47.580
And is that unfair to do somebody a favor by not exposing them to you?
01:12:00.520
Because I can't quite wrap my head around if this is a new form of racism, and I'm participating in it, which would be horrible.
01:12:13.300
All right, let me leave you with one useful thing.
01:12:17.580
The first politician who can consistently and clearly articulate the argument on the opposing side will become president in a landslide.
01:12:30.400
We've never had a president who could give you a full accounting of the opposite opinion.
01:12:37.120
Somebody who could say, look, I'll tell you what I'm going to do is X.
01:12:40.780
But a lot of people are against X, and I want to fully explain their opinion.
01:12:47.240
And now after having fully explained their opinion, I'll tell you why I don't agree with it.
01:12:52.280
That person wins every presidential race in a landslide.
01:13:01.140
Because what do people want to know if you're not going to do things their way?
01:13:08.440
They want to know that you heard their argument.
01:13:11.920
Because you can go the other way if you give full respect to the way you didn't go.
01:13:19.300
You just see the politicians say their way is bad.
01:13:28.520
And I think that's actually, you might be on to that.
01:13:35.400
He came the closest to somebody who could give respect to the other opinion.
01:13:49.680
But imagine you could take that to the extreme.
01:13:52.980
The first person who does that, take somebody like a, I'll just pick a name.
01:14:00.620
So if you don't know, Matt Gaetz was a champion debater in high school, I think, or college.
01:14:07.120
But he has a background as like a state champion debater.
01:14:11.300
And when you see him debate, you see that debate talent come out.
01:14:22.440
It's not really trying to represent the other side.
01:14:24.880
But he's an individual who is, I would say, intellectually agile, meaning that he can make corrections, like he can tweak things.
01:14:38.300
Some people are just locked into whoever they are.
01:14:46.160
Somebody like him could say, look, here's the other side's argument, and I'll explain it completely.
01:14:54.180
Now I'll tell you why we want to go the other way.
01:15:09.280
Yeah, maybe on some level Andrew Yang would be a good example of that.
01:15:15.160
But I think you would agree that they just brushed.
01:15:20.340
There are certainly times when some people were more forthcoming.
01:15:23.400
But it's just sort of a little bit brushing the topic, I think.
01:15:28.580
Somebody says, you're wrong as hell on this one, Scott.
01:15:32.520
I'm wrong that somebody who explained the other side's argument would not win in the landslide.
01:15:40.100
Well, I think that you have to account for skill.
01:15:43.920
If you took an average person with not much skill, that might be a way to end your career.
01:15:50.660
Because you gave too much attention to the other side.
01:15:54.740
But if you were good at it, and maybe I should have said this more clearly.
01:15:58.740
If you were a trained persuader, telling the other side's full story won't hurt you at all.
01:16:09.060
If you're bad at it, telling the other side's argument just puts it out there.
01:16:16.660
But if you're a trained persuader, you can pull that off, and it's a dunk.
01:16:25.460
I've said before that except for my shady personal personality,
01:16:39.220
And I would just tell them what system I would use to give you transparency.
01:16:43.420
See, I could easily become president if I were a different person.
01:16:48.640
But I'm just saying my skill set would make me president easily if I were starting with a different person.
01:16:55.220
I'd have to be taller, have hair, maybe have voted recently, something like that.
01:17:11.520
You only have to keep some people who might have gone either way to feel that you're the most transparent of the options.
01:17:20.760
So you're only looking at that 2% slice of people who can be moved, and that's all it takes for a landslide.
01:17:30.180
Yes, I would need more hair to become president.
01:17:46.900
Somebody says Bill Gates is a college dropout who bought DOS.
01:17:50.920
Well, if you think that Bill Gates became the richest person in the country because he got lucky, you really need to examine that.