Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1420 Scott Adams： Today's Misleading Title is Cats Loving Dogs and Losing Weight by Breathing

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, it's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the entire

00:00:11.320 year, not to mention the month, the week, and the day. Today I am streaming to you from two

00:00:17.660 platforms, the Locals platform, subscribers only, who have been talking to me for about

00:00:23.680 five minutes so far. Probably in the future I'm going to be looking to the Locals people 1.00

00:00:27.840 to give me ideas for the live stream. I don't have a plan yet about where I'm going to be

00:00:33.600 streaming in the future, but I'll continue on YouTube and may add some options, including

00:00:39.480 Locals. All right, if you're watching it on the Locals platform and you're a subscriber,

00:00:49.320 you would not see any commercials, but you also have the YouTube option if you prefer it.

00:00:54.580 So, how would you like to enjoy the Simultaneous Sip? Yeah, I know you would. All you need is a

00:01:00.940 cupper, mug, or a glass, a tanker, chalice, or stein, a kenteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:01:06.240 Fill it with your favorite liquid. I know you like coffee. Some of you do. And join me now for the

00:01:12.820 unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:01:17.400 It's called the Simultaneous Sip. It's going to happen now.

00:01:24.580 Kevin asks, how have I not spilled coffee on a live stream yet? Well, it's time, isn't it? It's

00:01:32.420 about time. All right, let's talk about all the stories. There's a recent report that Space Force

00:01:41.180 is looking to militarize the moon. Now, of course, it's Space Force, so it's a military entity. So,

00:01:51.320 of course, they're militarizing space. But when you hear those words, it's pretty scary, isn't it?

00:01:57.840 It's pretty scary. And apparently, we've now made claim to space around, you know, the lunar situation,

00:02:06.600 the moon. It looks like it's inevitable that we'll try to put military assets on the moon.

00:02:12.760 Because I think whoever controls the moon controls everything, right? So, I would think that there's

00:02:20.640 going to be a massive space race between the major powers to get control of the moon. And

00:02:27.620 pretty much guaranteed, we're going to have a war on the moon. So, that's something to look forward to.

00:02:36.280 War on the moon. Pretty much guaranteed. And so, we've got that going on. Rasmussen reports in their

00:02:47.580 polling that 69% of conservatives say stricter enforcement of existing gun laws would do more

00:02:56.980 than creating new laws, right? So, conservatives, almost 70%, say all we need is the current laws,

00:03:04.320 but just enforce them better. 31% of liberals think the current laws are sufficient, and they would

00:03:13.780 prefer new laws. Now, let me ask you this. How many of the people who answered the poll,

00:03:20.260 conservative and liberal, how many of them even know what the gun laws are? How many liberals

00:03:27.380 could tell you what the gun laws are? I think the conservatives probably could come closer.

00:03:34.320 Because they have to navigate the gun laws to own a gun. But if the liberals don't own guns, 0.99

00:03:40.360 you probably don't even know what the laws are. So, how could they think that the laws are sufficient

00:03:46.180 or insufficient if they don't know what they are? So, any kind of poll on gun ownership runs into this

00:03:55.460 wall of people don't know what the laws are or what they could be or what difference it would make. 0.93

00:03:59.800 So, these are kind of silly opinions. Speaking of silly opinions, Rasmussen also finds in a telephone 0.56

00:04:14.100 and online survey that just 29% of likely voters say laws including that require photo identification at

00:04:24.300 the polls discriminate. 62% say voter ideas laws don't discriminate.

00:04:37.100 What was that all about?

00:04:42.400 Oh, it looks like some people are having problems with the stream, but that'll work itself out.

00:04:46.860 All right. So, what do you think of that? 29% of likely voters say requiring photo ID discriminates

00:04:58.400 against voters. Remember I told you that you can get a quarter of the public, roughly, give or take

00:05:05.760 a few percentages. You can get a quarter of the public to agree to any bad idea.

00:05:12.160 Any bad idea. A quarter of the public is going to say, yeah. If you did a poll that says, how many

00:05:20.660 of you would like us to hit you in the head with a pipe? Well, you get 75% of the people say, hit me 0.99

00:05:29.160 in the head with a pipe for no reason. I don't like that at all. 25% of the public would say, give it a

00:05:36.760 chance. Might work. Might work out. So, here we are. 29% don't think that you need photo ID and it

00:05:46.180 won't help. And the only reason is to make it hard for people to vote. Here's another one. 27% of

00:05:52.980 Oregonians support abolishing the police. You see this 25% thing, give or take? You can get a quarter of

00:06:03.800 the country, up to almost a third, to agree to anything. Just anything. You know, I feel as if

00:06:13.720 there used to be a time when you could get 80% of people to agree on something, but maybe those things

00:06:19.200 don't get polled. I suppose if 80% of the country agrees on something, you don't even bother doing the

00:06:24.840 poll because you would know it. All right. So, look for this recurring pattern that a quarter of the

00:06:31.640 public, roughly, will have any whacked opinion. Just crazy opinions. All right. David Boxenhorn on

00:06:40.620 Twitter alerts us to a NPR article about gene editing therapy. So, apparently there's a new success.

00:06:50.400 There's a gentleman who had a rare disorder and they did some genes editing and apparently they edit

00:06:57.820 the genes and they insert the genes into the body or the edited parts. And the edited parts swim around

00:07:05.740 in your body and take hold in exactly the right places. Yeah, it's CRISPR technology. And it's a big

00:07:15.120 story that an incurable disease was just cured. It was a somewhat rare disease, but incurable and now

00:07:23.440 cured. But that's not the whole story. The whole story is that this is now doable. And it's doable on a

00:07:34.400 whole other level than what we've seen before. So, probably in the next, I don't know, five years, it's

00:07:42.600 not very far away, I'd say in the next five years we will be editing genes like crazy because we can do it

00:07:49.640 now. Yeah, we should be taking on, you know, various kinds of cancers and all kinds of blood

00:07:55.660 problems. And what else can you do with this? Can you fix eyesight? What do you think? Apparently

00:08:04.240 there is some kind of specific kind of blindness that can be fixed with this technology or

00:08:08.680 potentially. But what about just being nearsighted? I don't know. Is that genetic? Or is that just age

00:08:16.880 so there's nothing that you can do about it? Or can you reverse aging? Can you do some gene

00:08:21.900 splicing and make somebody live longer? So I told you that people like me probably, according to the

00:08:30.600 science, have a special gene situation that allows me to sleep far less than other people and still

00:08:37.600 function. Yeah, baldness. Baldness will probably get fixed. If you have the option, let's say you're a

00:08:46.060 normal sleeper. If you have the option to do some gene therapy so that five hours of sleep would just

00:08:52.540 be great for you, as it is for me. I was just born that way. Would you do it? Would you enhance your

00:09:00.540 body with that superpower just because you could? If you knew it was safe enough and you could just get

00:09:08.500 a little gene therapy and it would take three hours of sleep off your day, would you do it? I'm looking

00:09:15.620 at your comments. Mostly no's because people say they like sleep. I think that makes sense. But a

00:09:23.340 number of you would do it because you would... I don't know how to tell you this, but I have two

00:09:28.360 lifetimes for year one because those morning hours that I'm awake that most of you are asleep,

00:09:34.240 I do the equivalent of a full day's work, play, entertainment. I mean, I stuff 24 hours into

00:09:41.520 like three or four hours because they're such good hours. You know, brain is maximum. I'm not tired.

00:09:47.680 I'm happy to be alive. So I literally lead the equivalent of two lifetimes. And I like being

00:09:56.720 alive. It's kind of cool. So having two lifetimes during year one is really good stuff. If you could

00:10:04.160 get gene therapy and have two lifetimes instead of one, and trust me, that second lifetime, the one

00:10:10.880 when you're sleeping, is great. It's way better than the other one. The other life where, you know,

00:10:17.780 everybody's awake and I'm just interacting with the world is good. It's a perfectly fine life. But the

00:10:23.280 one when you guys are asleep, most of you, is really good. That part of the day is really good.

00:10:30.400 That's why I enjoy it so much. All right. So that's part of the golden age that's coming.

00:10:39.680 I am still fascinated by the following question that I know many of you feel that you have

00:10:45.820 a solid answer to. I'm not going to talk about the question of whether masks work. I know,

00:10:51.300 I know, you don't want to hear that anymore. But I'm still fascinated by the solidarity of the experts

00:10:57.380 and why that is. Now, the speculation that people have given me is that the reason that the top

00:11:05.200 experts for every country and every state in the union, the United States, every one of them,

00:11:11.480 say that masks work while the science, according to many of you, is less clear. Why is it that there

00:11:19.480 would be so much agreement at the top political level of the medical world? Now, many of you have said

00:11:26.700 quite reasonably, you've said, Scott, it's not about medicine. It's not about the data. It's about

00:11:34.020 people who don't want to lose their jobs. So as soon as they're told what the what the answer is,

00:11:40.100 that will be allowed by the CDC and the, you know, the Fauci's and the who, then all the medical

00:11:45.800 experts who are the sort of the political medical experts, you know, the ones who are helping the

00:11:51.020 government make decisions, that all of them don't want to get fired. They don't want to be embarrassed.

00:11:58.080 They don't want to take a risk. So they just conform to whatever the the consensus is, and then stick to

00:12:04.900 it like they really believe it. Does that explain it? Do you feel that that would explain a complete,

00:12:11.920 I'm really, I think it's 100% of industrialized countries, main experts say that masks do work

00:12:21.240 in specific situations, let's say, in retirement homes and stuff like that? Not necessarily outside.

00:12:28.500 I don't think anybody thinks they work outdoors. But do you think that that explains it all? That you

00:12:36.240 can explain the entire situation by the fact that the experts are lying to you, and that they're just

00:12:43.420 agreeing with with dogma, and that they're literally just lying to you that it's their own opinion?

00:12:50.580 Do you buy that? Do you buy that they would so quickly form around that opinion? Well, here's the

00:12:59.440 wrinkle. Didn't the medical community completely form around the opinion the masks don't work?

00:13:08.620 Before they completely surrounded the opinion that they do? Do a fact check on me. When Fauci and the

00:13:16.160 WHO and Surgeon General, etc. in the United States, were saying masks definitely won't help, because

00:13:22.420 that's what they said at first, what was the consensus of the entire medical community?

00:13:29.440 Didn't they agree? Do a fact check on me, because I don't remember exactly. But I feel as if

00:13:36.400 I didn't see any major medical expert, let's say the head of an organization or something,

00:13:43.080 disagree with that, right? And did any data change? Was there any change in data from the time that

00:13:50.480 Fauci said, no mess, don't work, don't do it, to the time he said they totally work and you should do

00:13:56.880 it all the time? Did any data change? I don't think so, because it wasn't enough time, right? Nobody did

00:14:04.320 a study or anything like that. So, if it's true that the experts went from completely saying x is true

00:14:14.160 to completely saying x is untrue, or the reverse, with no change in the data, then I believe that your

00:14:23.120 opinions would be fair to say that there's nothing the experts are saying which should be taken as credible.

00:14:30.960 Is that amazing? How amazing is it that we can say that statement, and you're probably all saying,

00:14:40.560 you get a point. There's probably nobody here who's listening to this, or almost nobody,

00:14:46.800 who says, yeah, Scott, that's crazy that you're not listening to the experts.

00:14:51.320 Because the experts are completely divorced from the data. If they can have two separate opinions

00:14:57.620 completely reversed with no change in data, we just watched it. So, I would have said not long ago

00:15:05.940 that it's a crazy opinion that the entire medical community could be just following the leader,

00:15:12.340 like that's it. You can't find an honest broker among the entire senior echelon of medical experts

00:15:20.020 working for the governments. Nobody. But maybe we just saw a public demonstration of exactly that.

00:15:28.340 We may have just watched it right in front of our eyes. And that's really amazing. You know,

00:15:33.700 independent of whether masks work or not, the psychology of this just is amazing. All right.

00:15:41.300 But I would add this little caveat, which is, in the rare situation where experts were told masks

00:15:48.820 don't work, and then told that they do, that would seem to me, my common sense would tell me,

00:15:55.140 which, of course, is a real problem. We don't really have common sense. We have the illusion

00:15:59.540 of common sense. But my illusion of common sense is that when you have a situation where it rapidly

00:16:05.860 goes from don't use them to, yeah, you'd better use them everywhere, that you would have plenty of

00:16:10.980 doctors in that situation who would not feel at risk for a while. Right? So, the moment when

00:16:18.740 the opinion changed from definitely don't do it to definitely do it, that was the time everybody

00:16:24.980 was free. If you were a medical expert during the transition of don't do it to do it, how could

00:16:33.140 you be fired for your opinion? Because for a while, both opinions were out there, you know,

00:16:38.180 with equal strength. So, that was a point where you should have seen a lot of disagreement.

00:16:43.780 Do you remember any? I don't remember any. I feel as if it was just a switch.

00:16:52.580 And what does that tell you? You can't even get disagreement during a time when you're switching

00:16:57.300 from yes to no. Even if it's just briefly, like a few weeks maybe. We should have seen all kinds of

00:17:03.940 experts saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we think yes. And other experts saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we say no.

00:17:10.500 Something's very wrong here. Yeah, and I see you mentioning ivermectin every few minutes. And so the

00:17:17.300 question is, could the medical community be as wrong about a therapeutic? Yes. Yes.

00:17:25.700 The old thinking that the medical community could not be so group-thinky and so afraid and so

00:17:36.580 disreputable that they could just go with a lie because it's easier for their career. There was a

00:17:44.020 time I wouldn't have believed that could happen. I believe it now. I do believe now that the medical

00:17:51.940 community is divorced from the data on a lot of big questions. Not all of them. But any question

00:17:58.420 that has a political dimension, the data doesn't matter at all. It just seems to make no difference.

00:18:05.300 We get opposite decisions with the same data. So there you go on that. There's a little fake news,

00:18:13.700 I think, coming about Nike. So Nike's president recently said this, Nike is a brand that is of

00:18:22.900 China and for China. How do you interpret that? That the president of Nike said Nike is a brand that

00:18:30.100 is of China and for China. Well, I think the way it's being interpreted is that therefore Nike has to

00:18:38.100 do whatever China wants them to do, which is fair. I think that's a fair statement. But what do they

00:18:45.300 mean by it? Are they throwing their allegiance behind China versus some other country? Here's what I think

00:18:50.740 it means. I think the context was probably when they say Nike is a brand that is of China, I think they

00:18:59.300 mean that their stuff is made in China. Now that would just be a fact, right? To say that Nike is of

00:19:06.340 China, meaning that China makes their products, that would just be a fact. And then they say for

00:19:11.700 China. Does that just mean they sell their products into China? So there's nothing really being said

00:19:18.900 here, which is China makes our products, we already knew that, and China buys our products, which we

00:19:25.380 already knew. So I don't think there's anything new here. But the way it's stated, especially out of context,

00:19:31.300 makes it makes it look a little extra bad. And it is bad. It's bad because there's a major company,

00:19:40.580 about as major as you can get, that really just has to do what our adversary wants them to do.

00:19:47.380 So that's not cool. Adam on Twitter, Adam Dopamine is his handle. He tweeted this. He said,

00:19:59.900 Scott Adams predicted the country would believe we had elected two presidents after the 2020 vote.

00:20:06.500 True. I predicted that we would elect two presidents, not one. Or at least in our minds,

00:20:13.320 legally, there would be one. But in our minds, there would be two presidents. That was my actual

00:20:19.000 prediction. And Adam points out, when presented with a coin toss, who else called side? How many

00:20:26.460 people predicted that when you flip the coin, it would land on its side and stay there? Just me.

00:20:33.120 I didn't hear anybody else knew it. Did you? I believe I'm the only person who said that we won't

00:20:37.800 have a result in the election. We'll have two presidents. Sure enough, the loudest cheer of the

00:20:43.600 night in Trump's rally was Trump won. And I guess the crowd went wild. And I think, you know, half of

00:20:52.120 the people in this country or more are concerned about the integrity of the election, the last election.

00:20:57.580 So what do you say? Was my prediction correct that we got two presidents? Kind of. It was. So that's

00:21:07.680 one of my weirder predictions. Here's another prediction that we don't know if it's right yet,

00:21:15.200 but it's weird. All right. So remember when Biden said he would sign the infrastructure bill that a

00:21:21.560 bipartisan commission came up with. And I said, not so soon. Just because, sorry, just because the news

00:21:31.280 is reporting that we have a deal. Democrat participants said yes. Republican participants

00:21:40.880 in the little working group said yes. And Biden said yes. So the news said we got a deal. And I told you,

00:21:48.640 no, we don't. We don't have a deal. They're just completely wrong about that. Well, it only took a

00:21:55.800 few hours for Biden to say, when I said I was going to sign it, I didn't mean I'd sign it. What I meant

00:22:02.520 was, if an entirely different bill, full of stuff that I wanted that I didn't get, if that is given

00:22:09.860 to me at the same time, I'll sign the bill, but not unless I get this other bill, which is unlikely to

00:22:16.920 be happening. So basically, he said he wasn't going to sign it after he said he signed it.

00:22:22.400 But then there was some pushback. And the Democrats got embarrassed because Biden was confused again.

00:22:29.460 Am I signing it? Am I not signing it? Kind of pathetic. It kind of makes him even more obviously

00:22:37.500 not capable. So they tried to clean it up by saying, no, no, no, we didn't mean that.

00:22:43.140 What we meant was, he totally signed that one bill. Now, you still need Congress, right? Congress

00:22:52.840 still has to sign the thing. Do you think they will? Why would they? Why would Congress agree

00:23:00.840 just because a committee came up with a bipartisan agreement, and Biden said he'd sign it? Why would

00:23:07.320 that make the rest of the Congress agree? It wouldn't. In all likelihood, it will just be

00:23:13.240 defeated. So my prediction is that everybody who says, yeah, this looks like a done deal, everybody's

00:23:19.020 agreed. I don't think so. I think we live in a world where everything gets stopped just because they

00:23:25.680 can. So one side will stop it. Now, hold that prediction, because it is possible that it'll get

00:23:32.540 signed. I'm not going to say it's impossible. But I'm going to say the odds are that we're not that

00:23:38.100 close to getting this signed. So I'm going to put a, I'll put a, let's say, a limiter on it. I'll say

00:23:45.360 before the end of the year, they won't get anything signed. Eventually, someday, maybe something gets

00:23:51.400 signed. But I'm going to say before the end of the year, no infrastructure deal. That'll be my

00:23:56.460 prediction. Going against the grain. Apparently, Biden's popularity is doing pretty well in some

00:24:05.460 categories. For example, he's getting good marks and he's getting good marks for handling the

00:24:14.060 coronavirus pandemic. And by the way, would you agree? Would most of you agree that Biden does get

00:24:21.440 high marks for handling the pandemic? I feel like that would be a fair statement. I also feel that

00:24:28.500 he inherited a really good situation. I'm seeing a bunch of no's because it's a political question.

00:24:35.620 But I think Biden is doing well on vaccinations because Trump set him up to do well. Whoever was

00:24:46.160 president was going to do well because of what Trump did to prepare, right? If Trump had not done what

00:24:51.820 he did, Project Warp Speed, get the vaccinations up, you know, kick some ass, knock down some walls, 0.98

00:24:57.640 the things that Trump is the best at. If he had not done that, would Biden be so popular for doing a 0.92

00:25:03.660 good job? I don't think so. Look at Australia. Australia has about 4% of vaccination rate and they're

00:25:10.660 just closed down Sydney again. Think about it. The United States is opening up, I think, for good.

00:25:19.520 Australia has 4% vaccination rate and they just locked down Sydney. Imagine if a major city in the

00:25:28.520 United States got locked down this week. We'd be going nuts about that. Remember I told you that

00:25:36.680 you can't judge how well any country does in the pandemic until it's over. Because I predicted that

00:25:44.360 some countries would start well, maybe for reasons that we don't even understand. Other countries would

00:25:50.360 not do so well, also for reasons we don't understand. But that by the time you got to the end, we'd be

00:25:56.580 smarter about what works and that the United States, because of its capability, you know, it's wealth,

00:26:03.280 its capability. There are a lot of things we do well compared to other countries. And I predicted

00:26:08.540 that we would come out toward the top end of good outcomes. But it would take until the end,

00:26:16.960 right? Here we are. Australia was a model of good behavior and keeping the virus out in the beginning,

00:26:25.220 right? If you looked in the first months of the pandemic, Australia, A+, United States,

00:26:31.940 D-minus. How about now? How would you score it now? Right now you would give Australia an F.

00:26:41.600 You would give Australia a failing grade as of today. And you would give the United States

00:26:47.200 maybe an A, right? Because we're going to get to the end of this in a really solid situation.

00:26:56.900 On top of that, there's news today that the, at least the mRNA vaccinations, the ones where you

00:27:03.540 need two of them, appear to have permanent benefit. So the indication from a new study is that their

00:27:13.060 benefit is lasting and permanent. Maybe not the J&J shot, but the mRNA ones, it might be permanent, 0.60

00:27:19.260 permanent protection. And at the same time, they protect against the variants.

00:27:26.760 That's Trump. Now, maybe he got lucky, right? Because I don't know that anybody knew the

00:27:32.520 vaccinations would be this powerful. And I know you're worried about them. And I know that there's

00:27:37.520 concern about side effects. And I'm not minimizing that. But I'm just saying at this point, it looks like

00:27:43.040 the United States, thanks mostly to Trump, is going to kick the ass of almost every country when it 0.99

00:27:50.760 comes to the coronavirus. It looks like that's going to happen. So that was one of my predictions as 0.99

00:27:57.100 well, that we would come from behind. All right. So I was talking about Biden's popularity. So Biden's

00:28:03.120 popularity because of handling the coronavirus. But mostly that was Trump. Trump gave him a situation that

00:28:11.640 pretty much guaranteed that whoever took over was going to succeed. Because it's not like Biden

00:28:17.060 was sitting in on the meetings on the rollout. It's like, okay, you know, you're going to get

00:28:22.220 three trucks. You're going to drive that vaccine down to Florida. It's not like any of the presidents

00:28:27.820 are going to be involved in the logistics. That was going to happen the way it was going to happen,

00:28:32.740 no matter who was in charge, right? Because it was going to be top priority. There would be money,

00:28:37.580 plenty of people to work on, and plenty of assets. It was going to work.

00:28:40.400 We had everything we needed to make the rollout work. You would have had to try hard to screw

00:28:45.820 it up. And apparently we didn't. So he's got that going for him. The other thing that Biden is doing

00:28:51.740 well on is the economy. Biden is doing well on the economy. Why? Why is Biden getting high marks on

00:29:02.080 the economy? Is it because of how he's changed the tax plan? Well, he hasn't changed it, right? He's

00:29:09.020 proposed things. But nothing's changed. The economy that we have now is Trump's economy. Now, you can

00:29:16.280 say, you know, give or take the stimulus packages and stuff, that maybe that was important. But it

00:29:24.600 looks like the two things that make Biden popular, the economy and the coronavirus handling, were both

00:29:31.700 Trump. Trump put the economy in the strongest position it ever was, so that after the pandemic

00:29:38.400 was over, it would just explode again. Exactly what we saw. But if the economy had been weak before the

00:29:46.280 pandemic, why would you expect it to be strong now? Obviously, you wouldn't. So

00:29:52.280 the things that Biden is not doing well on are immigration, which Trump did better. Trump did

00:30:03.120 that better. I think you could just say that objectively, that in terms of at least restricting

00:30:08.800 it, he did better. You could argue about the humanity of it. That's a different argument.

00:30:12.840 And Biden is doing poorly in his relationship with Russia and China. Some of our biggest

00:30:21.600 challenges, how to handle Russia, how to handle China. Biden's doing better. And what about North

00:30:30.260 Korea? Well, North Korea isn't terribly important at the moment, because Trump fixed it. Trump fixed

00:30:39.400 it. The wars in the Middle East. I guess Biden is bombing some Iranian assets in Syria, because they 0.81

00:30:46.820 had some drone attacks come out of there. But basically, even the Middle East is kind of in the

00:30:52.980 best shape it's been in a long time, because of Trump. Right? So everything about Biden can be seen

00:31:00.600 through a filter of what Trump did. So far, it's not even about Biden. If Biden does anything to the

00:31:07.340 economy, is it going to make it better? Probably not, because it doesn't seem to need anything right

00:31:14.220 now, except maybe some debt relief. We'll see if he can do anything about that. All right, I got a

00:31:20.100 question for you. The people on the political right are quite obsessed about the source of the

00:31:28.340 coronavirus. Did it come out of the Wuhan lab? And importantly, are obsessed by whether Anthony 0.94

00:31:34.740 Fauci was part of any recommending or funding that went into the Wuhan lab, and specifically that

00:31:41.760 coronavirus part, and then ended up with a worldwide pandemic? And the question I ask you is,

00:31:50.200 why do you care about that? You assume you care, and I also care. But why?

00:31:57.440 Why? Why? Suppose you found out that Anthony Fauci was behind the recommending or the funding

00:32:08.360 of the Wuhan lab. What difference would that make? Because he's clearly not, he wasn't funding

00:32:16.060 military gain of function. Does anybody think that? If what he was doing was funding things that

00:32:27.360 scientists working in that field believed should have been funded, which just sounds like that's what

00:32:32.880 it was, then all he did was fund a thing that people thought should get funded. Because we need to be

00:32:39.200 able to protect against the gain of function, we need to understand it, etc. Now, if that funding

00:32:44.720 went somewhere that produced something bad, is that Fauci's problem? Even if he did? And I think he's

00:32:52.800 denying that he necessarily did anything that would fund it. So I think there's some question about the

00:32:58.220 fact pattern here, too. But what if it is true? Why is that a problem? Because that sounds like his job.

00:33:06.340 Wouldn't his job be to make sure that money got to the places that were researching the things that

00:33:11.780 we thought should be researched? I don't even understand the issue. Now, I see the issue of he may have

00:33:19.760 lied about his involvement. But in the political world, that's sort of a political lie, isn't it?

00:33:27.080 Suppose what he did was he was involved in some way with some funding that did, in fact, make its way

00:33:33.040 over to the lab. But if you ask him, he says, no, I funded this entity, but then this entity funded

00:33:39.400 them. So it wasn't me, it was the other entity. Those are just sort of political differences, right?

00:33:45.340 It's not a lie, and it's not true. It's just a way of looking at it. Well, in one point of view,

00:33:51.400 I didn't fund them. But from another point of view, you could say I did. It's just like every science,

00:33:57.500 not every science, but every political question. You look at the same facts and just interpret them

00:34:02.680 differently. So my question is this, I'm not doubting whether he funded them. I don't know.

00:34:10.200 But I don't know what difference it makes, other than the fact that he may have lied about it,

00:34:16.780 but probably not a science lie, probably a political lie, as in, well, I funded people who funded it,

00:34:24.760 but that doesn't mean I funded it, or something like that, you know, where it's a little gray area.

00:34:30.920 I think that's where that's going to end up.

00:34:32.360 I don't buy into the fact or the allegation that Fauci is attempting to do something bad,

00:34:41.200 or did attempt to do something bad for the country. Why would he? You know, if he was doing

00:34:48.520 something that had a personal financial interest, I'd want to know more about that.

00:34:54.340 Yeah, so Don is saying he is evil. I would say that if that's your interpretation,

00:35:02.920 that Fauci is evil, then you are brainwashed. Because that's the brainwashing take.

00:35:11.420 He could be somebody who did something that was good for his financial interests. That's possible.

00:35:18.860 Also thinking it was good for the country, perhaps. But evil? Really? If your opinion of him is that

00:35:29.020 he's evil, you mean that he intentionally set out to do something bad to the world? I don't think

00:35:35.760 there's evidence of that. So if you say to yourself he may have misled Congress by shading the truth

00:35:42.740 about how things got funded or his involvement, I'd say yeah, probably. That would be just a typical

00:35:48.240 political thing to shade your involvement and frame it the way that makes you sound good.

00:35:53.940 But that's not evil. That's just a Tuesday. Now, I don't want to be the one to defend him.

00:36:01.840 So don't get me wrong. If there's something he did that's bad, let's know about it. But I'm not

00:36:08.480 aware of anything. And I've been watching the news pretty carefully. And everything I see might be true

00:36:14.660 in terms of his funding influence. But I don't know how it makes any difference.

00:36:24.160 So Rachel says, the argument is that there is no good game of function.

00:36:30.760 I've not seen that argument. I don't believe that that's true. That there's no such thing as good

00:36:37.400 game of function research. Because at the very least, you would want to know how the bad guys

00:36:42.740 were doing it. So you'd have to do it to see if it works. And then you'd have something to make a

00:36:49.160 vaccine against. Or at least find out what's possible and what's not. I feel like you'd have

00:36:54.140 to do the game of function stuff just to know how to defend against it. I think. All right.

00:37:01.540 So we're still hearing from CNN about the big lie. And they've done a good job of branding this,

00:37:11.060 by the way. So their branding is very consistent. Talking about Trump's claim that the election was

00:37:15.540 not valid in terms of the vote counting. And according to CNN, it looks like that argument is

00:37:28.780 getting smaller and smaller. Meaning that all of the possible ways that any fraud could be discovered

00:37:35.200 seem to be not happening. So it looks like the last thing that might produce some kind of surprise

00:37:46.260 would be the Arizona Maricopa audit, which is apparently done. They've completed it, but we don't

00:37:52.820 know the outcome. And it's already being criticized for being sloppy. Meaning that they've sort of

00:38:01.120 vaccinated the public into thinking, oh, yeah, there's an audit happening. But let us tell you

00:38:06.300 all the ways they're doing it wrong. So that if something comes out of it, we can just say, well,

00:38:10.960 we told you it wasn't done right. So there's your result. Wasn't done right. Doesn't mean anything.

00:38:16.320 So we're being set up brainwashed, really. We're being into believing that even if something comes

00:38:25.900 out of that audit, it won't mean anything. How does it make sense to have the research done in China

00:38:36.040 and banned in the US? The reason it makes sense is that they're willing to do it there.

00:38:41.320 That's it. They were willing to do it there. That's all you need. All right. So what do you

00:38:51.620 believe at this point? It's been a while, right? If there were irregularities, wouldn't you know

00:38:58.520 about them by now? I mean, proven irregularities. Wouldn't that be in the news by now? Do you really

00:39:03.780 believe that all of the people involved in the Arizona Maricopa audit, that if they had the goods,

00:39:11.320 you wouldn't know about that by now? Do you think? Do you think that they would be able to sit on that

00:39:20.380 for days, if not weeks, if they had the goods in Maricopa? Not a chance. Not a chance. So here's

00:39:30.020 another lesson in prediction. Nobody can keep that secret. There are definitely kinds of secrets you

00:39:38.120 could keep. Here's a secret you could keep. We didn't find anything. Right? Remember how impressed

00:39:46.300 we were that the Russia collusion project with Mueller? Weren't you impressed that we didn't

00:39:54.120 hear leaks? Well, maybe there's a reason. Maybe when the leak is we didn't find anything,

00:40:01.180 people can keep that secret. Because the people who are keeping that secret wanted you to think

00:40:06.380 maybe they did find something. Because the longer you thought maybe there is something,

00:40:11.280 the better it was for the individuals doing it. In other words, if they were anti-Trump,

00:40:16.080 they didn't want to give you the result too fast. They showed there wasn't anything there.

00:40:21.580 So I think maybe people can keep a secret when there's nothing there. Do you know when people

00:40:27.020 can't ever keep a secret? Ever? When there's lots of people involved. Right? The Maricopa audit would have

00:40:35.100 lots of people involved. Family members would be hearing it, etc. People don't keep secrets that

00:40:39.980 well. If they found a big old smoking gun, you would know it by now. You wouldn't know the details

00:40:48.940 necessarily. But people would be saying, wait till Tuesday. Wink, wink, wink. We've got it.

00:40:56.340 We've got you now. Hold on to the details. But we got you. And you know you would have heard that by

00:41:03.980 now. Right? So if you have optimism that the Maricopa audit is going to be the one that brings

00:41:11.000 it home, you should probably release on that. Now it might be that they have some allegations that

00:41:19.260 are interesting. And then they'll be doubted, of course, because the alleged sloppiness of it all.

00:41:26.560 So whatever they come up with will be doubted. But I'll tell you what's not going to happen.

00:41:31.560 A big, shocking, provable error, deliberate or otherwise, that would change the results.

00:41:40.220 You would know that by now. Guaranteed. All right? So that's how to predict the future.

00:41:45.360 Sure. If they found nothing, they might be able to keep the secret. And that looks like what they're

00:41:50.200 doing. But if they found something, nobody's going to keep that secret. They don't have any reason to

00:41:55.380 keep it. They would at least tell you a bombshell is coming. Right? Can you imagine that they did this

00:42:01.720 whole audit, and nobody involved has told you, might be a bombshell coming? Of course they would tell

00:42:09.180 you that. Of course they would, if they had one. All right. We have a continuing... Oh, and here's my

00:42:17.580 question about the audits. Can these audits, let's say the Maricopa audit, could it tell us if there was

00:42:24.380 any, let's say, any bad behavior involving software or databases or hardware? Would their audit pick that

00:42:33.260 up? In other words, are they counting and looking at the right things that they could eliminate the

00:42:39.440 possibility that the machines had any, any issues with them? I think not, but I need a fact check on

00:42:47.040 that. Because it would seem that the most likely place that somebody would hide a major fraud would

00:42:53.820 be in the software. I'm not making any allegations that that happened. I'm just asking the question,

00:42:59.320 how easily could it be discovered if it did? And would this particular audit even have the tools

00:43:06.140 to look into it if they could? So I don't know that we'll know anything conclusive. That's the way

00:43:13.740 the world we live in. Oh, Sparky says the main problem with atheists is that not that they don't 1.00

00:43:22.880 believe in the supernatural, but that they don't believe that evil exists. Well, I don't call my

00:43:29.320 self an atheist, but I do not believe that evil exists, except as a frame for people. There are

00:43:37.940 definitely people who like to hurt other people and enjoy it and go out of their way to do it.

00:43:43.600 That's real. If you want to call that evil, that's just a labeling thing. So more and more small

00:43:50.740 businesses are finding they can't hire people because people will take a very small amount of free money

00:43:56.040 and prefer it over a larger amount of money they have to work for. Not too surprising. Now,

00:44:02.980 it seems to me that most of these unemployed people are living with somebody who is feeding them,

00:44:07.980 meaning parents or spouse or something. And it is kind of shocking how many people are not willing to

00:44:15.500 go back to work. It's really quite shocking. But it certainly says that our economy is healthy.

00:44:21.780 It also says that unemployment might not matter that much because the people who are unemployed

00:44:28.100 seem to be doing okay. They're not trying too hard to get back to work, at least in this environment

00:44:34.680 where they're getting free checks. And that is almost what I wanted to talk about. The Daily Mail,

00:44:45.560 which I enjoy watching because it's fun to see how Great Britain is handling, you know, let's say the

00:44:54.160 wokeness stuff. So if you're not familiar with the Daily Mail, they handles, you know, the news of the day.

00:44:59.460 But they also, in a very British way, I guess, have lots of tabloidy things along the side of the

00:45:07.220 page. Yeah, I can give a shout out to Meet Comic on Locals. So Meet Comic came to Locals, huh?

00:45:20.920 Good to have you. So if you want to subscribe to Meet Comics, that would be on the Locals

00:45:25.740 subscription platform. Anyway, the Daily Mail is trying to deal with the fact that one of their,

00:45:33.300 the biggest parts of their business model is showing attractive women, sometimes men, but it's

00:45:40.900 usually women, and then making comments about their appearance. And I've been amused at the trouble that

00:45:47.420 they're having, because they're trying to keep this business model of sort of making a big deal about

00:45:52.780 women's bodies. But they're in an era where it's more acceptable to say that anybody looks beautiful,

00:46:00.840 no matter, let's say, their weight, or what they were born with. Right? So the old standard, the old sexist

00:46:10.140 standard that we're releasing on, is that you could open a publication, and it would say,

00:46:16.240 look at this hot 25-year-old in a bikini. And everybody was good with that, or at least everybody 0.66

00:46:22.800 in Great Britain was good enough with it that it allowed, they allowed that to go on. But now they can't do

00:46:28.920 that. So they have to come up with new ways to complement the appearance of people who are, let's

00:46:35.540 say, less than perfect looking. Because that's the new standard. You're beautiful at any weight,

00:46:42.180 you're beautiful at any age, you're just beautiful the way you are. So here are some of the words that

00:46:47.840 they're using. This is just from today. I won't even tell you who they're talking about. But somebody

00:46:53.700 had a very eye-popping display. So if somebody says to you that you're putting on an eye-popping

00:47:02.640 display, are they saying that you're beautiful or sexy? No, not exactly. But you put it on an eye-popping

00:47:10.640 display. Here's another one. This quote would leave little to the imagination in billowing gowns, 0.93

00:47:19.200 while some other person I won't mention, works a bedazzled jumpsuit. So the best they can say

00:47:25.960 about the beauty of this particular celebrity is that she's working a bedazzled jumpsuit. 1.00

00:47:33.260 Let me tell you, if the news ever says about you, the best thing they can say about you is that

00:47:39.740 you're working a bedazzled jumpsuit, maybe you should go to the gym. That's all I'm saying.

00:47:45.580 And if the best you can do is leave a little to the imagination in a billowing gown, well,

00:47:52.580 maybe you could work on your diet a little bit. Here's another one. Somebody sizzles in a tiny

00:48:00.720 metallic bikini. They sizzled. Were they attractive? Were they great looking? Were they sexy? I don't

00:48:09.560 know, but they sizzled. They were sizzling. Here's another one. Somebody flashed major side boob 1.00

00:48:15.160 in a plunging halter top. But did it look good? Was it attractive? Was it hot? Does it make you

00:48:24.620 excited? Well, we don't know. But we know that that side boob got flashed in a plunging halter top. 1.00

00:48:31.800 And then there's somebody else who has a jaw-dropping figure. A jaw-dropping figure. Is a jaw-dropping

00:48:39.280 figure a good one? One that looks like a fitness model? Or is it somebody who's

00:48:46.920 more subjectively beautiful, but not according to the classic model, shall we say?

00:48:55.700 So watching the Daily Mail struggle with how to compliment people who do not look like the classic,

00:49:02.140 you know, perfect sculpture kind of people that got complimented in the 70s through 90s is kind of

00:49:09.000 funny. Kind of funny. And what's Robot Reads and News going to say? Well, I will tell you this,

00:49:16.660 for those of you who are not on my Locals channel, that the most recent Robots Read News, my alternative

00:49:23.560 comic that I run mostly on Locals, used the naughtiest word I've ever used in a comic. That's right.

00:49:31.300 The worst word you could ever use in public is now the subject of a comic. But you won't be able

00:49:38.600 to see it here, because I would get cancelled for it. Yes, it's naughty. It's terribly naughty.

00:49:45.220 All right. I see there's somebody here who reads me on Locals. All right. I'm going to go for now.

00:49:53.400 I'm going to turn off YouTube. I'll see you YouTubers tomorrow. I'm going to say a little bit more to the

00:50:00.440 Locals people who will stay signed on. And I will see you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - June 28, 2021

Episode 1420 Scott Adams： Today's Misleading Title is Cats Loving Dogs and Losing Weight by Breathing

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript