Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1365 Scott Adams： CNN Tries to Cancel its Own Pundit, Bill Gates is a Free Man, Herd Immunity, Biden Gaffes, More

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, start screaming in now. Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:09.640 Will it be the best part of your day? I think it will. I think it will. You can hold me to that.

00:00:15.660 And if you'd like to make it extra, extra special, like super special, and I'm talking extreme,

00:00:23.060 well then all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein,

00:00:26.380 a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:31.280 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:36.440 the thing that's going to make everything better. It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.

00:00:40.740 Go.

00:00:45.240 Mmm, yeah.

00:00:48.040 Well, I know everybody laughed when I said the golden age was coming,

00:00:52.820 and I have to admit, the pandemic definitely threw me off my game. But it seems that without the

00:01:01.300 pandemic, we could not have reached the golden age. Think about it. What did the pandemic solve for us?

00:01:09.960 Of course, tragedy like crazy, lots of deaths, not minimizing any of the pain, but we kind of had

00:01:18.060 to have a pandemic to get to the other side so that the golden age could happen. For example,

00:01:26.300 I think it will redo education totally. It will redo commuting totally. It will redo what work is

00:01:33.360 totally. It'll probably change family units. I mean, just about everything's going to be

00:01:39.160 changed. But also, we're much better prepared for a future pandemic, which is really big.

00:01:45.840 And it could be that some of these technologies, the mRNA platform, might be even a solution for

00:01:53.320 cancer. So, you know, just as nobody would ask for a world war, the fact is, when you have big wars,

00:02:02.580 you end up, you know, inventing radar and inventing, you know, nuclear power accidentally and all that.

00:02:09.820 So, nobody wanted a pandemic. But here we are. And my job is to look at the news and tell you,

00:02:19.300 you know, whether it's true or what to think about it, or at least a different way to think about it.

00:02:24.760 And there's no news. The news just stopped. Because news is usually bad news, right? And

00:02:32.780 it is in my imagination. But is everything looking solved except the debt? And I'm not even sure if

00:02:40.680 the debt's a problem, because it's all confusing. So let's talk about all the things which are not

00:02:48.260 the biggest problems in the world. Things are looking pretty darn good. Stock market's up, economy's

00:02:54.500 recovering. Pandemic is, I feel like we've got the leash on the pandemic now. But here are the things

00:03:03.300 that qualify as news during the golden age. Bill and Melinda Gates announced they're getting divorced

00:03:12.060 after 27 years. Now, this would be a big surprise to anyone who did not watch the Netflix documentary

00:03:20.060 about Bill Gates. If you watch the Netflix documentary, you'll see interviews with

00:03:25.620 Melinda and Bill separately. And I came away from that thinking, I don't think they're getting along.

00:03:35.980 I mean, when I watched the special, I thought to myself, they don't look like they should be married.

00:03:41.740 Because Melinda had a little bit of an attitude about Bill that came across. And I

00:03:49.980 just felt like I was picking up some contempt, like some negativity. Did anybody else see that

00:03:55.380 special? Because I came away from it thinking, why is he married to her? She seems terrible to him. 0.73

00:04:03.120 And she was doing it publicly. So I thought, oh, I feel like insulting your spouse on television 0.56

00:04:09.620 in a documentary might be telling us there's some problems there. But Bill Gates is a free man now.

00:04:17.280 And based on what I saw in that documentary, he's going to be a lot happier, like a lot happier.

00:04:25.580 So congratulations to Bill Gates for, you know, pulling the cord. I think he needed to do that.

00:04:32.380 Now, there's a story about their meeting that tells you everything about couples. Are you ready for this?

00:04:39.680 So this is apparently an anecdote of how they met. So they met at work. And then Bill Gates saw Melinda

00:04:47.240 later in the parking lot and asked her on a date two weeks out. Now, who asked somebody on a date

00:04:56.340 two weeks out? It was a little bit too prepared or a little bit too planned. And I guess Melinda told

00:05:03.900 them, two weeks from tonight, I have no idea what I'm doing two weeks from tonight. Okay, first of all,

00:05:12.720 that's what he should have walked away. If you if you try to make a date with somebody in two weeks,

00:05:19.180 and their excuse for saying no, is they don't know what they're going to be doing in two weeks,

00:05:24.380 walk away. Just so anyway, and then Melinda said, quote, you're not spontaneous enough for me. 0.96

00:05:35.700 Melinda said, and then she said, he called an hour later and said, is this spontaneous enough for you?

00:05:42.420 And then asked around and they went on a date and got married. Now, this is everything you need to

00:05:48.900 know about men and women as a couple. I don't think I'm speaking about anything too personal. When I say

00:05:57.200 I have been accused of not being spontaneous. I sometimes come off as being calculating. I often

00:06:06.780 will think about the the impact of my actions, and how that might affect my future. In fact,

00:06:14.240 I can't really turn it off. I'm always thinking, if this happens, what will be the outcome? Also known

00:06:22.240 as the normal way a brain operates. So when women require us, us men, to be spontaneous, do you know

00:06:32.320 what men say to that? That's not a thing. That's right. The main, one of the main things, it's not the

00:06:40.920 main thing. But one of the main things a woman wants from a man is a thing that doesn't even exist. 1.00

00:06:47.940 Spontaneity. That's not a thing. If you're a man, have you ever spontaneously had sex?

00:06:58.760 Well, somebody probably thought you did. 0.91

00:07:00.840 Spontaneity. It's not spontaneous if you're looking for it all the time, and then sometimes

00:07:08.100 you get it. That's the opposite of spontaneous. Would you say that if you were hunting for

00:07:13.940 mushrooms in the forest, and then you found a mushroom that you were hunting for, was it

00:07:20.060 spontaneous finding of a mushroom? No, it's the opposite. It's you planned to go look for mushrooms.

00:07:27.140 You didn't know exactly when you'd find it, but there it was. It's like that with sex for men. 0.97

00:07:33.860 We're always looking for it. It never turns off. And when we get it, sometimes the woman will say,

00:07:41.260 well, that was some spontaneous sex we had there. I sure enjoyed that spontaneous sex. And the man is 0.99

00:07:47.280 thinking, spontaneous? I've been trying to make this happen for a week. Spontaneous. So no matter

00:07:56.700 how rich you are, you have the same damn problems. All right. Rasmussen, in a new poll, I don't know 1.00

00:08:03.600 if you can see it yet, but you'll be able to see it soon, said that we asked this question, among

00:08:09.360 others, should vaccinated people wear masks in public? Are you surprised that Republicans said

00:08:15.920 yes to masks in public by only 25%? What if I told you about 25%? Every poll, doesn't matter what the

00:08:27.160 question is, 25% of the people answer are just going to be fucked up. It doesn't matter what the 0.99

00:08:34.040 question is. It doesn't matter if they're Democrats, Republicans. It doesn't matter. 25% of everybody you

00:08:41.560 poll will just have a fucked up response that you can't explain. It's like, well, you can ask people, 0.98

00:08:49.120 would you like to be beaten to death with a hammer? 25% of people responding would say, yeah, I think I

00:08:56.840 wouldn't mind that. I think I'd like to be beaten to death with a hammer. I can't explain it. It's just 0.99

00:09:01.660 25%, no matter what the poll is. But Democrats, 75% said that vaccinated people should wear masks in

00:09:10.720 public. Is that based on science? Which one is following the science? The GOP, who says the

00:09:20.620 risks are very small, or the Democrats, who also say the risk is very small, but you should do

00:09:26.880 something about the risk? Which one's following the science? It's opposites. They're both following

00:09:35.720 the science. Right? That's the fucking problem. I'm sorry, I was swearing too much. Everybody who says

00:09:43.760 follow the science, here is my response to everyone in the world who says you should follow the science.

00:09:50.880 My response goes like this, follow the science. Oh, you follow the science. Because it's just stupid.

00:09:57.780 People can't follow the science. It's not a thing. It's like spontaneous sex. You think it's a thing, 1.00

00:10:06.820 but it's not. It's not that you can do it or you could not do it. It's not like some people do it

00:10:13.680 and some people don't do it. That's the frame we've been given. There's nothing like that. It's a bunch of

00:10:20.600 people, 100% of them who are incapable of following the science. All human beings, 100% of us, are

00:10:31.320 incapable of following science. Because we don't know what it is. Perfect example. Is the science

00:10:38.560 telling you to wear a mask after you're vaccinated? A little bit. Is it telling you not to wear a mask

00:10:44.440 because you're vaccinated? A little bit. So what are you going to do? You default to what CNN or Fox

00:10:52.220 News or whoever you're following, whatever they told you, basically. So there's no illusion here of

00:10:58.960 anybody following any science. The questions like this just line up exactly by political affiliation.

00:11:07.240 Nobody is looking at science if you just coincidentally happen to line up exactly by political affiliation,

00:11:13.600 except for the 25% who are whack. All right. If you've been wondering how to deal with this big 1.00

00:11:22.600 lie question, now, just background, the phrase the big lie is what CNN and the left are trying to brand

00:11:31.280 Trump's accusation that the election was not fair and equitable. Now, they started out by saying it's a

00:11:40.000 big lie to say the election was not fair. Trump did a Trump on them today. He decided to define the big

00:11:50.740 lie as the opposite. So Trump has told us now that he will be considering the phrase the big lie

00:11:58.840 to refer to the fact that the election was fair.

00:12:01.900 Is he going to get away with it? Totally. Totally. Totally going to get away with it. Does it sound

00:12:10.980 like anything familiar? Yeah. He used the same play before perfectly. Do you remember when the left

00:12:19.860 tried to brand Trump and the right with fake news? Remember what happened to fake news? Trump took the

00:12:27.860 weapon out of their hand, turned it around and used fake news to just destroy the entire industry.

00:12:35.080 Trump, and mostly just Trump, the rest of us being, you know, follower honors, but Trump destroyed the

00:12:42.400 entire news industry by, you know, branding fake news. And then there were so many examples that it just

00:12:49.700 became true. It was always true, but in our minds, it became true. So I think he's going to pull this

00:12:56.960 off. I think Trump will actually, at least, you know, of course, only for the Republicans, not for

00:13:02.600 the Democrats. I think he's going to turn the big lie into a whole different meaning. And it's fun to

00:13:10.320 watch just to see if you can get away with it. But here is my argument. Well, if you can call it that,

00:13:17.940 or funnel, when I encounter people online or other place who say to me, Scott, we know for sure that the

00:13:25.920 election was fair. And anybody who says otherwise is part of the big lie. Let me tell you the

00:13:32.520 the technique I use to essentially change their mind in real time, which is rare. Have I ever told

00:13:42.460 you that you really can't change people's minds? It's so rare. In this case, you don't actually change

00:13:48.880 their mind, but you can get to the point where they'll stop talking. Meaning that they'll just sort

00:13:54.940 just slink away. That's as close as you can get. Now, after they slink away, knowing that you've

00:14:00.320 destroyed their thinking, it'll just resurrect after they're away from you a while. They just

00:14:05.980 need a few hours of recharging to get back their fake news bubble. But here's what causes them that

00:14:14.060 pain. So the first thing somebody says, it's a big lie that the election had any widespread fraud.

00:14:21.380 It's a big lie. Big lie, I say. To which I say, it's a big lie.

00:14:24.940 You can't prove a negative. You can't prove something didn't happen. And then people will

00:14:32.660 say, well, but none of the courts found it. And then I say, the courts weren't looking for it.

00:14:40.360 The courts were addressing specific questions, but nobody had visibility on the whole process.

00:14:46.520 Nobody audited the code of the machines. Nobody did a thorough audit from beginning to end.

00:14:52.400 So then I say, you can't say that the evidence doesn't exist if you didn't look for it.

00:15:02.920 Now, so far, I'm only saying things that people will have to accept are true. Number one, they will

00:15:09.240 accept that you can't prove a negative, even though there's some exceptions, but basically,

00:15:13.340 you can't prove a negative. They will accept that. They will accept that not looking for something

00:15:19.900 is different from looking for it and not finding it. Nobody looked for it. That's why there's an

00:15:26.120 Arizona audit, because it wasn't looked for. You don't do an audit if you already did an audit.

00:15:33.320 So the first, the next thing you convince them of is that nobody looked at it. And the courts are not

00:15:39.600 even designed to look for it. The courts will rule about whether they'll rule on it. And they might

00:15:45.640 rule on some specific issues, which, you know, nobody's pushing as true at this point. Well, some

00:15:52.580 people might. Then you go to the high ground. And here's the kill shot, right? If I told you the high

00:16:00.420 ground maneuver in terms of persuasion, the high ground maneuver is where you take the argument to

00:16:05.540 a higher level, where nobody can disagree with the next thing you say. Now, it's hard to find those

00:16:12.180 situations. But when you find them, it's the end of the argument. If you get somebody to the high

00:16:18.140 ground, it's over. Here's the high ground. Every system that can be hacked will be hacked

00:16:27.300 under these conditions. There are lots of people involved. So you know that there are always some

00:16:32.700 bad people in there. If only one person was involved in whatever the thing is you're talking

00:16:36.920 about. Well, maybe you got a saint, right? Yeah, lucky we got the one honest person. But when lots of

00:16:43.500 people are involved, you can guarantee that some of them are, you know, going to do some some bad

00:16:49.340 stuff. Secondly, if there's a high payoff, either in money or power, in the case of an election,

00:16:56.540 you have all the incentive in the world. You've got people who would do bad things in the system

00:17:02.360 and in the right place. Under those conditions, you will get fraud 100% of the time. Every time.

00:17:12.300 There's no system that would that would be invulnerable to that. So the only thing you don't

00:17:19.380 know is whether it's happened already. That's the high ground. The high ground is every system gets

00:17:26.180 hacked. If there are lots of people involved, and it's possible. Is it possible to hack an election?

00:17:33.000 Of course, it may not be possible to do it and get away with it forever. That might not be possible.

00:17:39.620 But it's certainly possible to do it. We just don't know all the ways it could be done, etc.

00:17:45.600 Now, one way to do it would be to get to insiders, meaning that somebody who works in, I don't know,

00:17:51.800 electronic voting machine company or something like that. And we would have no way to know if any of

00:17:57.940 that had ever happened. But it is true that we do not have evidence of it. But you can't prove a

00:18:02.480 negative. So here's the here's the thing you say. Nobody looked for the evidence because courts are not

00:18:09.540 set up to do that. And the audits were only limited. So there's there's no visibility on the

00:18:15.400 whole election. And then you take them to the high ground and say, whenever this is the case,

00:18:19.420 you don't have full visibility, you got a lot of people involved, there's a lot to gain.

00:18:24.160 It will be compromised by intelligence agencies eventually. So that's the part you might want to add

00:18:30.640 by intelligence agencies. Maybe the CIA. Maybe Russia, maybe China. But sooner or later, they'll

00:18:39.300 one of them will get a get control of the voting system. We just don't know if it's happened yet.

00:18:44.940 All right. Apparently, China has a rocket that has a component that's, that's just going to fall to

00:18:53.880 earth wherever it falls. That's kind of scary, isn't it? There's just this big old rocket in space.

00:19:01.020 And it's going to eventually degrade its orbit and just fall wherever it falls. So got that hanging

00:19:08.040 over our heads, literally. Is it my imagination? Or is the Biden administration actually getting a

00:19:16.600 handle on the border? It looks like they are. I think the number of, you know, kids being confined

00:19:25.060 at the border is down, I don't know, 84% or something. But it looks like the Biden administration

00:19:30.800 is making some progress, getting that under control. I don't know if we have good reporting on this

00:19:37.540 situation, though. Because I'm a little, I'm a little confused as to how they could ever be making

00:19:43.760 progress, when everything they're doing seems to look like it would encourage more people to come,

00:19:49.720 not fewer. And it's also exactly the season when they should be coming. So I feel like maybe the

00:19:56.020 reporting is lagging here. Does it feel like you're getting good reports from the border? Because I don't

00:20:03.240 know how it could be getting better. But the reporting says it is. So I'm a little skeptical about the

00:20:09.240 reporting. CNN reports that the White House is discussing a new plan to expand domestic warrantless

00:20:17.500 surveillance of Americans by paying private companies to infiltrate and report on private

00:20:24.180 social media groups. I think I saw this in a tweet from Snowden. And I'm saying to myself,

00:20:34.380 is this new? I don't even know if this is new. Haven't we always infiltrated extremist groups?

00:20:47.180 So I mean, it sounds scary, but it sounds like just what we've always done. I don't even know if

00:20:51.120 it's new. I got a question for you on herd immunity. If we had a normal virus, herd immunity would be in

00:20:58.840 that, you know, 70% people have to either have a natural immunity or vaccination. But given that

00:21:04.940 the super spreaders are all going to be the super sick people, and we know that they're not children,

00:21:09.960 we know that they're either over 70, or they're obese. Do we reach herd immunity effectively,

00:21:17.680 just by vaccinating the obese, and the people over 70? Because here's, here's a question I've been 0.99

00:21:24.820 arguing with on Twitter. I believe, but I think this is short of being, you know, dead confirmed.

00:21:32.440 I believe it's true that the sicker you are, the more likely you're a super spreader. You have to 0.92

00:21:39.100 have a lot of virus in your body in order to give it off when you breathe. If you have to, if you have

00:21:46.860 to be pretty sick to be a super spreader, and we vaccinated all the over 70s and the obese people, 0.97

00:21:53.860 you would basically have taken all of the super spreaders out of the mix. And then all you would

00:21:59.780 have is sort of a regular spreader. I feel as if we're going to hit herd immunity faster than we

00:22:06.100 think, because we're intelligently vaccinating. Not only that, but the virus itself is, I hate to say

00:22:14.300 intelligently, but it's targeting the group of super spreaders. So once they've either had it or been

00:22:19.240 vaccinated, I think we just take pretty much all the super spreaders off the field. And I got a

00:22:27.160 feeling that we're going to get over this better than we think. Now, the wild card, as you know, is

00:22:32.840 the variants. There's a scary variant in India, there's scary variants in Europe. And so far, we're

00:22:41.020 thinking that the vaccination should work against the variants. But the variants might attack younger

00:22:47.740 people. And that might put a dent in my herd immunity concept that if you get the people who

00:22:55.480 would get sickest, take them off the field, no super spreaders. So that's just my non-doctor

00:23:03.340 hypothesis. I would love to see somebody who actually knows what they're talking about

00:23:07.020 to give an opinion on that. All right. Here's some fake news update. Apparently, this was a big

00:23:15.180 one. New York Times, Washington Post, NBC, and others. They all reported this story that turned

00:23:21.400 out to be false. They said that Rudy Giuliani was warned by the FBI. He was a target of some Russian

00:23:26.640 disinformation campaign. Apparently, it didn't happen. Now, they all had anonymous sources.

00:23:32.020 And they all confirmed it independently. What do you think was the anonymous source for each of

00:23:40.700 these media outlets? Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it might have been the other media

00:23:49.460 outlets. And they just didn't want to say it. So they just say anonymous source. Well, we saw it in

00:23:55.480 the New York Times. Why don't we just tell people it was an anonymous source? Because if they guess

00:24:01.300 right, it works, right? If it turns out the story is true, and there's an actual anonymous source that's

00:24:08.780 a real person with a real story, well, then you get away with it. It's only if you guess wrong,

00:24:15.480 and you said, oh, yeah, we totally confirmed it, and then it turns out to be false.

00:24:19.340 How exactly did they confirm it? How do all these major news outlets confirm something that never

00:24:27.980 happened? So they're either talking to the same spook, which is one theory I've seen, that there's,

00:24:36.240 you know, some CIA person or somebody else, you know, some deep, dark person is giving all of these

00:24:43.740 outlets the same fake news as an anonymous source, or gave it to one outlet. And then the other

00:24:50.560 outlets said, well, we'll just use this first outlet as our anonymous source. I think that's what's going

00:24:56.800 on. But I don't know. It's pretty ugly. Are you watching Tucker Carlson go after Frank Luntz,

00:25:07.320 pollster on his show? How many of you are watching that? And now I'm seeing, it looks like Fox News

00:25:15.020 has picked it up on their website. And I guess the accusation goes like this, that Frank Luntz gives

00:25:23.760 advice to both Democrats and Republicans, but also to big corporations that, you know, may not love

00:25:32.100 Republicans. And apparently he's good friends with Kevin McCarthy, minority leader, Republican,

00:25:39.420 and actually rents one of Frank Luntz's properties. So he actually is staying at Luntz's property. We

00:25:47.640 don't know if he's paying a market rent. There's no evidence that he's not. So we don't have anything

00:25:53.580 that looks like anything illegal or improper. But there is a kind of connection here that

00:25:59.700 Tucker Carlson is calling out. And he's wondering why the Republicans allow Frank Luntz to have so

00:26:08.380 much impact on Republican opinion, when he might be leaning more left. Seems like maybe he is. Now,

00:26:16.860 I don't have an opinion on Frank Luntz's political opinions. My observation of him is that he seems to be,

00:26:24.800 you know, he seems to at least try to talk in a way that's free of bias. Nobody's free of bias on the

00:26:32.680 inside. But when I see him talk, I'm going to say I don't see him talk in a biased way, like he's

00:26:38.920 obviously just selling a narrative. He does seem like he's just talking about the poll results. But when

00:26:44.940 it comes to giving advice, you know, we don't see that part. So who knows how much impact he has. But

00:26:51.660 why is this a story now? What is the trigger for this? Do you know? Does anybody know?

00:27:01.800 Why is the trigger for this? Why is Tucker going after him so hard?

00:27:08.400 Somebody says that Frank Luntz hated Trump. Yeah, but you know, some Republicans did too.

00:27:13.180 You know, he didn't really, when I saw Frank Luntz in public, I did not see him say anti-Trump stuff.

00:27:22.140 I don't know what he thought about otherwise.

00:27:27.260 So it's an interesting question. Can somebody who is a pollster, whose job is just data,

00:27:33.760 can they work for people on the left and the right and the corporations that are,

00:27:37.780 that are probably controlling them both? Can they, can he do that? I don't know. It's a good

00:27:44.980 question. You know, I think that Tucker's doing a, a solid service by making sure that we know about

00:27:51.680 this. So we're at least informed. But once we're informed, does that mean it should stop? I feel like

00:27:59.560 it needs transparency. But I don't know that you should tell somebody who's a data person that they

00:28:05.380 can't sell data to anybody they want, or even advice. So I certainly wouldn't want him to be like

00:28:10.920 locked out of being able to give advice to anybody he wants. But Tucker is certainly onto something when

00:28:17.040 he says, we should at least know what the situation is. You should at least, you should at least be aware.

00:28:24.140 So good work there by Tucker for making us aware.

00:28:32.400 So here's a big story that you won't see in the news, because it's about the news.

00:28:40.640 It seems to me that the, the health risk from watching CNN is so real now that you have to

00:28:48.740 actually take it seriously. It's, I think the health risk of the fake news, getting you all

00:28:54.480 worked up about, you know, how many people are worried that climate change will make the earth

00:28:59.880 uninhabitable. Imagine waking up and believing that the earth will be uninhabitable.

00:29:08.920 I mean, that would be pretty bad for your mental health. But also imagine any of the other stuff

00:29:14.620 that's on CNN and believing it. You would be in this continuous, you know, panic. So I think all

00:29:23.500 the people who are watching the panic porn on the fake news have a real legitimate health problem

00:29:29.440 in terms of anxiety, mental health, etc. But who would report on that? Not CNN. Because the people

00:29:38.720 whose job it would be to report on this, they can't put themselves out of business by reporting that

00:29:44.480 they're bad for your health. So it's a weird story that's really, really important. In my, in my

00:29:50.320 opinion, it's really important. Because this is a real health problem. And a major one probably affects

00:29:56.460 100 million people. Is that too much? Tens of millions? This is a big, big problem. But by its nature,

00:30:07.700 it just can't get reported. So we won't treat it that way. So that's a problem.

00:30:14.600 Joe Biden is finding out that it's a good thing to be a serial gaffer. Because when you make a new

00:30:21.260 gaffe, people are just used to it. So it doesn't seem like it. It doesn't seem like a problem.

00:30:27.820 So his latest one is he said, anybody making less than $400,000 a year will not pay a single penny in

00:30:34.800 taxes. Of course, what he meant is that they would not pay any extra taxes with the tax increase.

00:30:41.760 But instead, he said they won't pay a single penny. Now, does that mean he has Alzheimer's? No.

00:30:49.220 It's just more, it's more him. So I don't think that shows his decline. But it does show he's Joe Biden

00:30:55.780 still. One of the funniest stories is watching CNN hire Republicans as pundits, so that they can say,

00:31:05.200 well, at least we had one Republican on there, and then canceling them for being Republican. 0.72

00:31:11.340 It happened to Steve Cortez. So he had a contract with CNN to be their, you know, Republican

00:31:17.700 pundit, I guess. But he got frozen out because he kept being too good at it. That's literally true.

00:31:26.740 Steve Cortez lost his job on CNN by being, he was too good at it. You know, he was debunking the

00:31:32.340 fine people hoax on their network, which was true and useful and important. They couldn't handle it.

00:31:41.020 They got rid of him. So now we're seeing Rick Santorum is now in the crosshairs. He also,

00:31:48.700 I don't know if he still is, but was on the payroll as their pundit. And he made the mistake of,

00:31:56.380 in a speech recently, he, I'm paraphrasing, so this won't be exactly it, but paraphrasing,

00:32:02.980 he said that the Constitution and our country was formed primarily with Anglo-Saxon influence

00:32:10.380 and not much in terms of the Native Americans. But historians and people on the left got quite,

00:32:19.260 you know, quite angered by that. And they said, read your history, Rick Santorum, because you,

00:32:26.240 if you did, you would learn that the framers of our Constitution did, in fact, look at the Iroquois

00:32:33.220 nation to get some ideas about how to build our country. How many of you knew that? Did anybody

00:32:39.980 any of you know that the framers of the Constitution looked at the Native American,

00:32:47.260 you know, the five nations and how they had a federalist system? So I may have learned this

00:32:54.440 when I was a kid. I didn't remember it. So I just was refreshing my memory of it. But here's my

00:33:00.440 question. So just to be specific. So the Iroquois were made up of five nations, maybe you could call

00:33:09.660 them tribes, but they call them nations. So five nations, but the individual nations were like states

00:33:15.460 in the sense that they would make their own rules, and they would manage their own little nation. But

00:33:21.560 there was still a federal, if you could call it that, a higher authority that was a hereditary leader.

00:33:26.800 Now, if we're building a democracy, I don't think you can say we borrowed from a dictatorship

00:33:35.760 to build our system. But that's what people are saying. So if you've got one leader, and it's a

00:33:43.440 hereditary leader, it feels sort of a dictatorship to me. But just in the specific sense of letting the

00:33:53.080 individual nation states have their own laws, as long as they didn't violate whatever the top,

00:33:59.340 you know, the top law was, some are saying this was the model for the states having lots of control

00:34:07.480 and in a federalist system. Now, here's my question to you. Are there any systems that are different?

00:34:15.480 Because I'm not well informed, so I can't answer this question myself. It sounded like it was,

00:34:22.880 it sounded like I knew the answer when I asked the question, but I don't. So here's the question.

00:34:27.600 In China, does China have a system in which locally people have their own control? But of course,

00:34:37.460 if anything violated what the federal government wanted, the federal government would win.

00:34:42.520 was there any place that was different? Because it seems to me that the Iroquois nation was

00:34:54.220 certainly maybe not influenced by any other country, because they didn't have contact. But

00:35:00.940 it feels like everybody just comes up with the same idea. Don't they? Can you give me an example

00:35:07.980 of a large, large, has to be large, country in which there was no local control and local laws

00:35:17.640 that differed among the local groups? Is there any example of that? Because I feel as if this example,

00:35:23.680 we just accepted like, oh, here's a good example. We borrowed that federal system from the Iroquois,

00:35:29.960 to which I say, but everybody who sits down to invent a system comes up with the same one,

00:35:36.260 don't they? So that's what I need to fact check on. Was there any system at the time when the framing

00:35:43.800 was done, was there any system in the world, because they looked at other governments before

00:35:48.440 they made their decisions, was there any system in which they didn't have local laws in addition to

00:35:54.540 federal? I don't know. Somebody's saying China and the Soviet Union. But even they have local

00:36:03.760 government. I think they all have local government. So I reject this explanation that we are influenced

00:36:15.180 by nativists the way you do it. I mean, I just think it's the obvious way to do it.

00:36:20.500 All right. Anyway, we'll never hear an answer to that. What was hilarious, though, is watching Don

00:36:27.920 Lemon and Chris Cuomo, when they do the changeover from one show to the other, they do some banter

00:36:34.180 on screen, which is really good, by the way. One of the things that CNN does well is that handoff from

00:36:43.900 one show to the next, where they do a little banter before the other one takes over. If you like CNN's

00:36:50.900 programming, that's a really good technique. It's engaging every time. But anyway, Don Lemon and

00:36:57.260 Chris Cuomo were arguing with each other like a married couple over this Rick Santorum thing. And

00:37:03.020 and when I say married like arguing like a married couple, it goes like this. Hey, Chris Cuomo, what do you

00:37:14.060 think of this? I think it was bad. Chris Cuomo agrees. And then Don Lemon gets mad at him, because

00:37:21.020 Chris Cuomo also made another point. So then Don Lemon gets mad at him for not agreeing with him, in which he

00:37:29.580 already completely agreed. But he also made another point, which is just true, which feels like not

00:37:35.460 agreeing, because that's a different point. So why can't you just say I'm right, and go away? You know,

00:37:42.160 so basically, the two of them were in complete agreement, as far as I could tell. But they thought

00:37:48.500 they were arguing. Or at least Don Lemon did. He thought he was arguing. But there was no disagreement.

00:37:56.580 And he acted like he was still arguing. And that Chris Cuomo was like the, like the, the, the

00:38:03.320 bitch here. And he was, he was the one who'd done something wrong. And I think Cuomo was just, 0.99

00:38:08.740 you know, I'm watching this, I'm thinking, I think Cuomo was thinking, am I not agreeing with 100%

00:38:14.580 of what you're saying? Why do you have that arguing voice on? Yeah, very, very much like a typical

00:38:22.600 marriage. Meanwhile, the GOP is reportedly going full racist. There's some talk, we don't know that

00:38:33.000 this is confirmed. So this is a little bit speculative. But there's some people talking

00:38:37.820 about replacing Liz Cheney from some leadership areas, because Liz Cheney is anti-Trump, blah, blah,

00:38:46.220 blah. And this is Axios reported this, they said, most members recognize Cheney can't be succeeded

00:38:52.360 by a white man, given their top two leaders, that McCarthy and Steve Scalise are white men.

00:39:01.860 So I don't know if this story is true. Now, obviously, it's something they have to discuss.

00:39:10.180 Can we have a third white male in leadership? It's the right question. But here's the thing. 0.78

00:39:16.120 It's racist. How can the Republican Party do something that's overtly racist? It feels like

00:39:25.540 that's off-brand, doesn't it? It feels very off-brand. So as someone who has lost a couple of careers

00:39:35.840 for this, this is how I lost my banking career. There were too many white men in management. 0.99

00:39:42.760 And so management said, we're going to just stop promoting white men. And they told me that

00:39:48.120 directly. Like, that's not an interpretation. They called me into the office and said,

00:39:53.140 we can't promote you. We don't know when that'll ever change, because you're a white man, 0.91

00:39:58.140 and we have too many of them in management. So I quit, went to the local phone company, 0.69

00:40:03.140 got on the management track. I was going to be a high executive if things went well.

00:40:08.360 And same thing happened. One day they called me in and said, we have too many white men in

00:40:12.900 management. People are complaining, so we can't promote you ever, maybe, because you're a white 1.00

00:40:21.300 male. So I quit that job to become a cartoonist. Once I became a cartoonist, one of the things I did

00:40:27.280 was start a TV show on UPN, which on the second season, it got canceled because they had decided

00:40:34.840 to use that night for African-American programming. So three careers I lost by either being a white man

00:40:44.020 or having a comic about a white guy. And here it is again. Now, this was years ago. And, you know,

00:40:51.700 you kind of wish that this wasn't still happening. But don't you think there's somebody in Congress

00:40:57.620 who's saying, wait a minute, I thought that was going to be my job? Isn't there somebody who's

00:41:04.440 just being discriminated against? You know, if the third, you know, more powerful person happened

00:41:11.680 to be male and white, I don't know if it is. But this is just racism. I don't know how you can call

00:41:19.100 it anything else. Now, having said that, I also support having a government that looks

00:41:24.980 like the nature of the people. But you don't have to do it on every hiring decision. You

00:41:31.000 know, it's more like you should recruit better. But I don't know if denying somebody a job that

00:41:37.260 they're the right one for, I don't know if that gets us there. But I do agree we need to

00:41:43.120 have a government that looks like the people. So apparently, Biden was going to keep Trump's

00:41:51.360 low number of refugees at 15,000. But he got a lot of pushback on that. He raised his cap to

00:41:58.060 62,500 this fiscal year. So that's how many refugees will come in. So that would be on top of 0.68

00:42:05.460 immigration, they would be the ones who had some some reason to be a refugee.

00:42:09.360 And I think to myself, how do we come up with that number? Aren't you curious? Why is

00:42:17.940 it 62,500? You couldn't round that off. It couldn't be 60,000 or 65,000 or 70,000. But

00:42:31.200 it's 62,500. Because somehow we know that's the right number. There's no right number. Because

00:42:38.020 helping refugees doesn't really have a limit, right? Either these are people in desperate

00:42:46.660 problems, and you should help as many as you can. Or they're not in desperate problems, or it's not

00:42:53.160 your problem, and you shouldn't do any. But how do you pick a number? It's just weird. It's like

00:42:59.080 picking a number that you feel will make people leave you alone. That's what it feels like. It's like,

00:43:05.160 15,000. People didn't leave us alone. They said it should be more. Let's try 62,500 and see if

00:43:13.800 people stop complaining. I feel like this is just a stop complaining number. Because you couldn't,

00:43:20.160 I don't think you could back it up with any economics or the Bible or the Constitution or

00:43:25.900 anything. There's just no objective way to pick this number. So I guess you just pick a number that

00:43:31.380 sounds to the public like you thought about it. It's the best you can do. There was a fascinating

00:43:38.560 question on Twitter today that I would love to see a whole bunch of different variants on. And the

00:43:45.200 question was this. This is from Andrea, just a user on Twitter, who ended up getting tens of thousands

00:43:51.940 of retweets on this. And Andrea asked, what happens in your brain when it comes to adding 28

00:43:58.240 plus 47? And then she says, quote your process. Let me see how your brain works. This was really

00:44:05.880 interesting. Because 28 plus 47 is just complicated. You have to go through a process. And watch all the

00:44:14.300 different ways that people approached it. All right, Alex. So Alex Marty, you're a fucking asshole.

00:44:23.420 You should just get the fuck off of here, right? Just leave. Don't ever come back. I don't want to 1.00

00:44:30.020 see you again. So these are the assholes that just ruin the world. So Alex is saying, Scott is for open 1.00

00:44:37.140 borders. Scott is for open borders. No, you fuck. I'm not. I'm the opposite of that. I've said it a

00:44:43.660 million times. Just go fuck yourself and leave. Get out of here. You are not helping anybody. You are just 1.00

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - May 04, 2021

Episode 1365 Scott Adams： CNN Tries to Cancel its Own Pundit, Bill Gates is a Free Man, Herd Immunity, Biden Gaffes, More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript