Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1497 Scott Adams： There Isn't Much News Today But Somehow I Make it Fascinating Anyway

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of every single

00:00:09.780 day, no matter what. And today, it's a little bit of a slow news day, so I'm going to be taking

00:00:16.200 some questions toward the end, see if anybody's got anything on their mind. But how can you make

00:00:22.880 an ordinary day special? Well, it might have something to do with a simultaneous sip, doesn't

00:00:29.160 it? Yeah. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gels or a canteen jug or

00:00:33.520 a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And

00:00:39.460 join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes

00:00:45.420 everything better, including, well, pandemics. And it's going to happen now. Join me. Go.

00:00:52.360 Ah. Oh, I feel my spike proteins hardening. I don't know what that means. So let's see

00:01:07.080 what's going on. Brian Stelter made news. I love the fact that the guy whose job it is

00:01:15.260 to comment on the news or comment on the people who are commenting on the news, which I think

00:01:21.380 is more what Brian Stelter does, that he becomes the news. You can't become the news if your

00:01:28.040 job is to comment on the people commenting on the news. And if you're a person commenting

00:01:32.280 on the people commenting on the news, if you become the news, you're three layers away from

00:01:38.360 reality. Because you've got the news. Let's call that reality. And you've got the people

00:01:44.720 commenting on it. That's one level away from reality. And then you've got Stelter, who's

00:01:50.560 commenting on the people commenting on the news, usually talking about Fox News. So

00:01:55.360 he's two levels away from reality. And we're not even sure the reality was real, if you know

00:02:00.980 what I mean. So he might be three levels away from reality. But we're talking about him anyway.

00:02:07.360 So what did he do? He said that, talking about 9-11 yesterday, he said, network TV anchors

00:02:13.920 were, quote, the closest thing that America had to national leaders on 9-11.

00:02:19.500 They were the moral authority for the country on that first day. Especially with political

00:02:29.820 leaders in bunkers or otherwise out of sight. Now, as somebody funny said on Twitter, I forgot

00:02:39.020 to write down the person's name. But somehow Brian Stelter finds a way to make everything about

00:02:45.580 Brian Stelter. So the news has a great way of making everything about themselves.

00:02:55.480 Well, there was 9-11. But more importantly, what did Brian Stelter say?

00:03:00.060 All right. You know, the funny thing is, I don't even necessarily disagree with the statement.

00:03:09.240 I mean, obviously, it's a little bit of hyperbole. But they were the ones that were the face

00:03:15.500 of the country, in a sense, for a number of hours. But I would say that leadership takes

00:03:23.400 many forms. And that when 9-11 happened, there was lots of leadership. There was lots, maybe

00:03:32.440 more than we've ever had. Except for maybe Pearl Harbor or something. But I don't think there

00:03:37.860 was ever more leadership in this country than on 9-11. It was just distributed. You know,

00:03:44.440 there was the fire, you know, the fire professional, the police person. They all took responsibility.

00:03:53.400 Now, were they just doing a job? Well, it's doing a job if somebody's telling you what to

00:03:58.500 do. But if you have to figure out what to do, and you're making, you know, real-time life

00:04:04.180 and death decisions, that's leadership. I mean, you're basically saying, I got to figure

00:04:10.000 out what to do and then go do it. So I would say that leadership was probably at an all-time

00:04:14.980 high. Yeah, Flight 43, perfect example. Basically, leadership was instantly distributed. That's

00:04:23.240 one of the things this country does well. Maybe other countries do. But one of the things

00:04:27.100 that we do well is that we instantly distribute leadership. So leadership was sort of sitting

00:04:34.020 there at the presidency or wherever, you know, in its various leadership forms. But the moment

00:04:39.320 the first tower guy hit, who was in charge? Well, not really the president, right? I mean,

00:04:46.920 didn't make any decisions. But the fire trucks were moving. The first responders were moving.

00:04:51.700 So the leadership was at an all-time high, I would say. It's just it was distributed. Were

00:04:58.100 the people who were doing the news part of that? Absolutely. And they were a visual part.

00:05:05.700 So Stelter's, I think Stelter's got a point, right? It's one of those points that's fun to

00:05:10.160 argue with because it's not an absolute. So there's plenty of exceptions. But did the people

00:05:16.960 who gave us the news that day, were they displaying leadership? I'd say yes. No more

00:05:23.420 than the rest of us. I mean, everybody tried to figure out what they could do, you know,

00:05:29.060 who they could help. Is there somebody, you know, some way we can donate, you know, drive

00:05:34.360 there and try to dig people out. So yeah, lots of leadership. Tragic story out of Georgia.

00:05:43.200 Georgia, the Georgia Zoo is treating 13 western lowland gorillas who tested positive for COVID

00:05:49.900 after displaying symptoms. And what they don't, there's a lack of context on this story,

00:05:58.760 of course. So 13 gorillas all got COVID. But yeah, that's the bad news. But there was a control

00:06:06.500 group. The raccoons had zero cases of COVID. No COVID among the raccoons. But the gorillas, 1.00

00:06:17.320 13 cases. Wow. Why was it the raccoons didn't have any cases? I'll wait. In the comments,

00:06:27.960 why did the raccoons have no cases? Come on. Do I? Thank you. The raccoons were wearing masks.

00:06:41.040 That's right. The raccoons were wearing masks. Now, I understand that there are some of you

00:06:50.520 in my audience who don't like dad jokes as much as I do. What the hell is wrong with you?

00:06:56.720 If you don't like dad jokes, we can't be friends. You can watch. But we won't hang out. Because

00:07:08.860 it turns out you would hate me. If you hung out with me, because you might hear a few dad

00:07:14.620 jokes. Might be a few. All right. Tulsi Gabbard made a little news today. So on the anniversary

00:07:23.120 of 9-11, which this year fell on 9-11, she noted that, this is her quote, she said,

00:07:31.100 let us never forget that it was the Islamist ideology that inspired the terrorist attacks 0.54

00:07:37.840 and declaration of war against America on 9-11. And it is this Islamist ideology that continues 0.93

00:07:45.060 to fuel terrorist attacks around the world and is the foundation for so-called Islamic countries 1.00

00:07:51.840 like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia's discriminatory policy against Christians, Hindus,

00:07:58.440 Buddhists, atheists, etc. Now, it's bad enough that, according to Tulsi Gabbard, that the Islamic 1.00

00:08:07.740 ideology is discriminating against Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. That would be 0.76

00:08:15.080 plenty bad. But they're also discriminating against et cetera. And that's a big group, et cetera.

00:08:26.480 I've heard that the Taliban will line up the et cetera's and just execute them. They'll say,

00:08:33.760 whoa, we've got a Christian here, we've got an atheist, we'll handle you. But look at those et cetera's. 0.93

00:08:39.560 The et cetera's are bastards. Line them up and take care of them. So never be in the et cetera 1.00

00:08:46.300 category. You will surely be rounded up. Now, here's the thing that Tulsi did that's kind of clever

00:08:53.240 and provocative. What she did not say is that Islamic people are the problem. You got that, right? 1.00

00:09:03.220 What she did not say is that Islamic people are the problem. She said that Islamic ideology is the

00:09:12.920 problem. Almost as if she's treating Islamic ideology as a what? What? In the comments, finish my sentence.

00:09:25.280 What is she treating Islamic ideology like? A virus. Exactly. That's right. She's treating it like 0.99

00:09:36.880 a medical problem. A virus. Is it a medical problem? Is mental health a medical problem? I think we

00:09:46.340 would say yes, right? I think we're at a point where we say mental health is a medical problem

00:09:51.760 by definition. So if you had a Islamic ideology and that ideology, not the people, people are 0.63

00:10:02.320 all great. There's nothing about people here. We're talking about ideology. If the ideology

00:10:09.160 can cause problems, then is it fair to say there's something wrong with the ideology?

00:10:15.620 I think so. I think that's fair. So I think that Tulsi is both brave and honest and completely

00:10:25.060 accurate because she specifies ideology. Had she specified the religion or the people, that

00:10:32.860 would be another comment altogether. So what do you do about a virus? You can do what China 0.99

00:10:41.720 does. Social separation. They put the Uyghurs in camps and separate them from the rest of 1.00

00:10:50.780 the public. They treat it exactly the way they're treating the coronavirus. Social isolation.

00:10:56.280 And at force. Forced social isolation. Now, there's obviously no way that we could do that. But if we

00:11:07.480 don't understand, if we don't understand Islamic ideology as a mental virus, basically it's a mental 0.96

00:11:19.680 problem. Yeah, it's like a mental illness that travels like a virus. You can catch it from other

00:11:25.980 people. I just want to see this comment from, oh, there's, what was your take on George W's speech

00:11:37.320 yesterday? Was he referring to January 6th when he was talking about domestic terrorists? Well, if he

00:11:43.940 didn't mention January 6th specifically, then probably not. I didn't see the speech, but I think,

00:11:50.920 I think people were assuming he was talking about January 6th. And I don't think that we could

00:11:56.540 ignore that problem. Is there anybody that thinks we could ignore that there's a domestic terror

00:12:05.800 threat? Does anybody think that it's zero? I think it might be exaggerated. I don't know. Because,

00:12:13.880 you know, it would only take one horrible attack. And then we'd all say, well, we were underestimating

00:12:18.780 how bad it was. Let's see. I'm just looking at some of your comments. He was referring to

00:12:28.720 himself. Yeah, but do you think that there's a domestic terrorism problem? Do you think that's

00:12:36.860 something that's on our top, I don't know, 20 things to worry about? Yeah. In terms of total

00:12:44.360 impact on the country, it's probably pretty small. But if you happen to be in the building

00:12:49.600 where somebody comes in and starts shooting, you're not going to be happy. Yeah. Okay.

00:12:55.640 So, Iran, apparently Iran has agreed with, let's see, the IAEA, the watchdog, nuclear watchdog group,

00:13:09.640 nuclear agency, that they're going to let them service the monitoring equipment. Now, when you

00:13:17.060 see this story, do you say to yourself, wow, that's good news. Hey, we got some progress here. It looks

00:13:21.840 like Biden's going to pull this through. Because wouldn't you be happy if Iran at least was not 0.91

00:13:28.940 building nuclear devices without us knowing what they were doing? And it turns out that they say,

00:13:35.180 hey, yeah, maybe we'd be open to letting you service your monitoring equipment. So good news,

00:13:41.980 right? We're going to be able to, the countries of the world will be able to monitor their nuclear

00:13:50.520 stuff. And so this is a good sign that Iran is moving in the right direction, right? Looks all good. 1.00

00:13:57.580 Everybody happy? Yeah, we have shit you are not monitoring. I'm reading that. Do you think Iran 0.91

00:14:08.360 would agree to allow the monitoring devices to be repaired if the monitoring devices were monitoring

00:14:15.360 anything they cared about? No. No, this story is the fakest of fake news. Because nowhere in the story

00:14:23.640 does it mention that maybe we don't monitor the right places. And I think that's the most important part

00:14:32.220 of the story. How do we know we're monitoring the right places? If they're going to let us fix the

00:14:38.160 monitoring equipment, obviously they're not worried about those monitoring, those monitors looking at

00:14:44.260 any secrets. So I'm not even sure this is anything. All right, I provocatively, I tweeted this morning

00:14:54.720 that if science ever concludes that vaccinations are dangerous for young boys, specifically that group,

00:15:02.720 but nobody else, we'd vaccinate them anyway. If the only group that was worse off, and by the way, 0.51

00:15:11.860 I'm not claiming this, but there's some preprint studies showing that young boys get a little

00:15:18.160 myocarditis or some enlarged heart, whatever it is. So they get some health problems that are unusual

00:15:26.420 in the public. So in other words, they get hit by the vaccine itself might be more dangerous

00:15:34.900 in this case than the COVID. Now we don't know that. So that's not a claim. So don't ding me for a false

00:15:43.340 claim. It's more like a question that's out there with some scary information that's making us think

00:15:49.180 it's a good question. I don't know what the answer is, but it's a good question. So there's a preprint

00:15:54.560 paper that seems to show that young boys having more health problems from the vaccination itself

00:15:59.920 than other people are. Now, will that study hold up? Will it be duplicated? Will it pass peer review?

00:16:09.500 Maybe. Don't know. But it hasn't been peer reviewed. It's still in the preprint phase. And by the way,

00:16:17.660 it's kind of useful, isn't it, that the pandemic taught us all, you know, the rest of the public,

00:16:24.140 what a preprint publication is? Because I'm not sure everybody knew that before, right? And still not

00:16:30.440 everybody. But a lot of us at least understand that if something is a preprint study, the amount of

00:16:37.500 credibility you should give it needs to come way, way, way down, right? And if in your mind you're

00:16:44.240 saying, well, sure, it's a preprint, but there's an 80% chance it's right. Nope. Nope. It's not even

00:16:50.020 close to 80%. I don't know what it is. But I wouldn't be thinking it's most likely true. It might be closer

00:16:57.500 to a coin flip or even less, really. So if you hear there's a preprint paper, think coin flip.

00:17:06.240 That's about roughly the right, you know, risk, the right probability. Because about half of all

00:17:13.640 peer reviewed papers get rejected. They don't hold up over time. So if even half of peer reviewed papers

00:17:21.280 are a problem, imagine one that hasn't been peer reviewed, right? It's not going to be

00:17:26.200 better. It's not going to be better. It's going to be less than 50%. Now, I think the 50% might

00:17:32.160 have been on less hard science. I think the pandemic would be a little bit more objective

00:17:41.520 science, you know, hard science. And some of the behavioral studies are the ones that are

00:17:46.460 questionable, especially. All right. So what if it turns out that it's true? So it's just

00:17:53.900 a what if that young boys are worse off if they get vaccinated? Again, that's not established.

00:18:02.460 But what if it's true? What if it ends up being true? I think we would vaccinate them anyway. 0.74

00:18:08.480 Why? Because boys have the lowest value in society. If it were girls, do you think we 1.00

00:18:19.740 would treat it the same? If young girls were the ones who looked like the ones who would 1.00

00:18:24.520 have risks from the vaccination? No. No, we'd stop everything. Because girls are biologically 1.00

00:18:33.660 more valuable. And at the moment, in this point in time, 2021, they're socially more

00:18:39.380 valuable. I'll just say it out loud. Boys have the lowest value in American society. At 0.99

00:18:47.900 the moment. That was probably different when I grew up, etc. But at the moment, it's true.

00:18:52.760 I see Jewel Adora is agreeing with me. I appreciate that. Yeah. And there's a reason that boys go to

00:19:05.620 war and girls do not. Because biologically, the girls slash women are the only ones who can have 1.00

00:19:13.420 babies. And so they're more valuable to reproduction. It doesn't take many men to impregnate a lot of

00:19:20.060 women. We're happy to do the work. You know, if there's a shortage of men to impregnate the 1.00

00:19:26.040 women, I think the remaining men would step up. Maybe put a little extra effort into that 0.93

00:19:31.940 impregnating work. So you can always have too many men. And it's one of the reasons I think wars are

00:19:40.920 almost evolutionarily necessary to drain off the extra men. Because there's just too many of them.

00:19:48.300 But we don't have any kind of process to drain off extra women. You know, that never evolved, 1.00

00:19:55.280 because you don't want to do that. But yeah, you have all kinds of things that would drain off

00:20:00.180 the extra men. You got your, you know, your extreme sports. We'll go kill ourselves that way. You got

00:20:05.460 your reckless driving. We do more of that. You got your wars. You got your violence. You got your

00:20:11.320 prisons. So we have all of these systems for taking men out of the system, because there are too many of 1.00

00:20:16.820 them. But there's nothing like that for women. So just, that's just to mess with your minds a 1.00

00:20:25.800 little bit, to tell you that if we get to the point where vaccinating boys is bad for the boys,

00:20:31.820 but maybe it's the only way you can get to herd immunity, we would kill the boys in a heartbeat.

00:20:39.280 If you said, well, we're going to save a bunch of adults and a bunch of women, 1.00

00:20:42.160 but the cost of that is we're going to kill some extra boys, we just do it. And you know what?

00:20:50.580 I don't even disagree with it. I want to, because I used to be a young boy, right? I would love to

00:21:00.940 disagree with that and say, no, you will not put this burden unfairly on young boys.

00:21:05.940 That's all we got. We have a system in which young boys are essentially just fodder for a lot of

00:21:15.160 different things. We throw young boys at all kinds of danger. This is just another one, right? It's

00:21:21.400 just another one. Ken says, wow, Scott, I disagree strongly. And I respect that. I think this is a

00:21:30.360 topic in which disagreement is fully worthy of respect. I just put it out there as a provocative

00:21:38.460 thought. You can wrestle with it a little bit. So there's a video on Facebook, Adam Dopamine was

00:21:46.340 pointing to this, in which he thought there was some cognitive dissonance going on, in which a CNN

00:21:51.280 reporter was talking to a Trump supporter and asking this Trump supporter about, was she asking

00:22:01.440 vaccinations and stuff like that? I think the Trump supporter part was irrelevant to the story.

00:22:07.680 The relevant part was, and in fact, I don't even know if they said she was a Trump supporter.

00:22:11.620 I just, I think I intuited that. But it was Mary Quintanilla. And the CNN person challenges her on 0.96

00:22:23.040 some of her posts and points out that they've been fact-checked to be false. Now, as Adam Dopamine

00:22:30.480 pointed out, are we seeing cognitive dissonance from Mary Quintanilla? Because after the CNN person

00:22:38.000 points out that her posts have been debunked, instead of saying, oh, wow, I didn't know that,

00:22:44.640 that they've been debunked, I will immediately research that and possibly change my opinion,

00:22:50.280 you'd say, oh, that would be a person whose brain is operating correctly. But what if she just digs in

00:22:57.080 further? Well, that feels like cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is when you are revealed

00:23:04.580 to be inconsistent. In other words, you're not thinking right. You will torture your reality

00:23:11.860 until it all fits together and makes you look like you're rational, even though you're not.

00:23:16.680 So you will imagine spontaneously, just spontaneously, a false belief will pop up of why you do what you do.

00:23:25.060 So, once the CNN guy had said, okay, this is all debunked, are you still going to go with it, even though it's

00:23:33.380 completely debunked? Instead of saying, oh, okay, now it's debunked, I'll change my mind, she argued to keep it.

00:23:42.280 Is that cognitive dissonance? Well, if you wait all the way to the end of the video,

00:23:47.340 and it's where the payoff is, it's the complete end of the video, where she explains her philosophy

00:23:54.980 that reality, we have to deal with it as a subjective entity because we can't tell what's real

00:24:03.960 because the fact-checkers are no longer credible. Boom. Boom.

00:24:14.000 Boom. She's talking to the fact-checker, CNN, and telling him, yeah, that would be a great idea

00:24:20.800 to take your fact-checking and then revise my opinion, except you're not a credible source.

00:24:29.720 And she's right. Now, I don't think she's necessarily right about her posts. You know,

00:24:35.100 I don't agree with her posts. I haven't seen them all. I'm just assuming I wouldn't agree with them.

00:24:39.780 But is she right that the fact-checkers can't help her and her own research isn't going to help her

00:24:46.160 necessarily, except to get to a subjective opinion? She basically said in straight language

00:24:51.320 that her own research would not get her to truth. It would get her to a subjective truth,

00:24:58.080 and it's the best she can do. And so I'm watching this and I'm saying to myself,

00:25:02.640 is this an example of a, you know, some, let's say, unsophisticated person who doesn't know the

00:25:11.540 difference between truth and reality? Because that's how CNN presented it. Or is this somebody

00:25:17.120 operating at a higher level of reality? Because the higher level of reality is to understand that

00:25:22.480 we don't know the things we think we know. And she said that directly. She directly made a statement

00:25:30.180 at a higher level of awareness than the reporter. And the reporter couldn't recognize it because

00:25:36.400 the reporter's operating at a lower level of reality. The reporter thinks that the fact-check

00:25:43.820 means something or that we should be convinced by it. That's kind of a low level of reality right now.

00:25:50.420 It was, it seemed like a higher level of reality, I don't know, 10 years ago. 10 years ago,

00:25:56.180 I would have said, ah, if you're not doing the fact-checking, or at least finding it a little

00:26:00.760 bit credible, there's something wrong with you. But now I think in 2021, it's a perfectly reasonable

00:26:06.420 statement to say the fact-checking is shit. There is no way to know what's true. That feels pretty

00:26:12.600 close to true, like a fair statement. And so this is a lovely story of either a Miss Mary Quintanilla

00:26:22.600 operating at a higher level of awareness than CNN, or the opposite. You get, you get to pick your movie

00:26:30.260 on this one. But to me, it looked like she's at least somewhere in that ambiguous area.

00:26:39.400 All right. I was thinking today that think of all the things that Trump has been criticized for.

00:26:45.560 It's everything, right? Just everything. I don't think Trump has been criticized for,

00:26:52.860 you know, I mean, he's been criticized more ways and from more angles than anybody's ever been

00:26:59.000 criticized in the history of criticism. But here's, weirdly, a criticism that he either doesn't get,

00:27:06.960 or if he does, it doesn't stick. And it goes like this. Is he sincere in his love for working

00:27:15.720 Americans? You know, not the elite, but is he sincere in his love, love, L-O-V-E, capital L.

00:27:26.520 It's not even, it's not even lowercase l. You know, the claim would be that he loves the working

00:27:32.980 class with all capital letters. And that every single thing he's ever done in his entire life

00:27:40.300 is consistent with that. Everything. I don't think I've ever seen him questioned on that point.

00:27:49.500 And it makes me, it makes me think of the definition of charisma. The best definition of

00:27:55.700 charisma I ever saw, I forget who came up with it, but the definition is power plus empathy.

00:28:01.740 So empathy, in this case, would be a love for the working class and, and a, a clear willingness

00:28:09.740 to help. Does that describe Trump? Now forget about your cynical thoughts about, you know,

00:28:16.640 what somebody is really thinking or why they're thinking it. Just in terms of, does the working

00:28:21.400 class believe that Trump is completely on their side, at least a lot of them, and at the same

00:28:28.160 time that he has power. He has the ability to do something and he's on their side. Now you

00:28:35.660 could argue, oh, he didn't do enough. Well, he tried like hell. He tried like hell. I saw

00:28:41.500 in the comments he didn't get the wall built. True. True statement. He promised to build a wall.

00:28:47.700 He did not build a wall. But dear Lord, he tried hard. He tried harder than anybody's

00:28:56.600 ever tried. Has anybody ever come close to trying that hard right in front of you while

00:29:02.060 you watched? No. Nobody's ever come close. Now it didn't work, but do you doubt that he

00:29:07.900 was trying to build that wall for the benefit of the working class? I mean, he would imagine 0.98

00:29:13.420 that it would help everybody who's American. But yeah, I mean, he got it going, but it

00:29:20.060 didn't work out. So I think it's, again, it's sort of the dog not barking because Trump gets

00:29:27.720 criticized for everything. Everything. He is criticized for everything, but he's never been

00:29:33.880 touched on the most important question, which is, does he love the, actually love, with capital

00:29:42.300 letters, the working class? Think of another politician who could be this clean on the biggest

00:29:53.340 question. Because why is it that anybody would vote for him? It's this. It's this. He actually

00:30:00.600 cares and he has capability. You know, he has energy and capability. That's what you want.

00:30:05.120 So I don't think there's any mystery to why Trump is popular. Is there? You know, you can

00:30:14.660 look at his policies all day long, but as long as the working class feels bonded to him, and

00:30:21.380 by the way, that makes me feel bonded to him not because I'm working class, but because I'm

00:30:28.380 bonded to the working class too. Those are my roots. Anybody who has roots in the working

00:30:34.720 class is going to be bonded to it, right? So I'm bonded to the working class. He looks 0.99

00:30:40.480 like a hero to the working class, and even if I'm not in the, you know, quote, working

00:30:44.740 class right now, I'm closer to the elite, I'm still bonded to that population.

00:30:50.620 All right. Yeah, Trump's also more popular among non-college educated people, and all

00:31:03.500 that just makes sense. So the CNN is saying that Republican-leaning folks are saying they

00:31:11.120 prefer Trump to be the nominee in the next election. 63% say he should be the leader of

00:31:18.420 the Republican Party, but they're about evenly split over whether that would help the party

00:31:24.280 or not. They want him, but they're not entirely sure it's the best strategy. I think that's

00:31:30.560 pretty reasonable, isn't it? A lot of times you see a poll, and you say to yourself, that's

00:31:36.080 crazy. How are so many people getting the wrong idea? But this feels right in the pocket.

00:31:42.620 You know, two-thirds of the public-ish thinks Trump should be the nominee. That feels about

00:31:47.320 right. And they're about evenly split over whether that's a good idea. They want it, but

00:31:53.460 they're not sure it's a good idea. That's exactly where I'm at. You know, I would love to see

00:31:59.140 him as the nominee for a number of reasons, entertainment being close to the top. But I don't know if

00:32:06.620 it's a good idea. Do you? Because the trouble is, his effectiveness is what causes all the

00:32:15.020 trouble. You could say it's his provocation in the way he talks, and that's part of it. But if he

00:32:20.920 didn't, if he were not effective, couldn't actually change anything, then nobody would care.

00:32:26.640 Scott, have you considered this as the second act? Yes, I have. Yes, I have. What would be the

00:32:38.260 Trump third act? If this were a movie, what would be the third act? The part where all is lost and

00:32:46.000 there's, you know, you're dead. The third act would be when he lost re-election. I mean, you could make

00:32:52.120 a lot of third acts out of this. But if it turns out that Trump loses re-election, but somehow comes

00:33:00.020 back and wins, you have to make a movie out of this. I mean, it just has to be a movie. And there's

00:33:07.720 so many great ways you could make a movie out of this. By the way, if you made a movie about the

00:33:12.280 Trump experience, you would need, I think you would need some characters in it who are not just

00:33:19.640 the politicians. So you would need some ordinary people to, you know, to really give the character

00:33:26.360 of the movie. Who would be the best, the best character who would, who was not Trump himself

00:33:33.960 to be in a Trump movie that would give you like a really good sense of it? Who would that

00:33:40.920 be? Oh, Sertovich. That's a good one. Yeah. I think I would be in that conversation actually.

00:33:49.640 Because as an observer, I think I observed him correctly from the beginning. So if I were

00:33:57.380 writing the movie, I would put Sertovich in it, and I would put me in it, and, you know,

00:34:04.360 Jack Posobiec. I'd put half a dozen people who saw it early, the people who saw it early

00:34:12.360 and knew why he was going to prevail. I think that's the angle that makes it the most interesting.

00:34:19.260 Because, yeah, Joel Pollock would be another one. Ann Coulter would be in it, of course.

00:34:26.820 Yeah. And I think it would be interesting that way. But if you had to pick one of those,

00:34:29.880 who would it be? Just one of those characters? I don't know.

00:34:34.880 But Sertovich would be a heck of a good choice. I think I'd be a good choice just, and I'm not

00:34:43.400 bragging, because in this case it's just who was where or when. I mean, it doesn't have anything

00:34:48.740 to do with my skills. But I think I had a weird vantage point on this that would be an interesting

00:34:54.620 movie, movie point of view. All right. What do you think? Let me ask you. Do you think Trump

00:35:07.300 is going to be president again? In the comments, give me your prediction. Will Trump be president

00:35:14.500 president again? I'm looking at the locals as a faster response time. I'm seeing way more yeses

00:35:24.960 than noes. Actually, it looks about the same as a, it looks about two-thirds yes. Over on,

00:35:32.760 so this is interesting, so difference in the audience. On YouTube, I'm seeing more no,

00:35:38.020 but a lot of yeses too. Yeah, I think we're, I think your responses are pretty much like the poll,

00:35:43.460 about two-thirds yes. Somebody says DeSantis is a wild card. DeSantis is a wild card only

00:35:50.280 in one sentence. He's only relevant if Trump doesn't run. If Trump runs, DeSantis doesn't

00:35:58.100 have a chance of getting the nominee, I don't think. I think Trump would just walk right into

00:36:02.280 it. But if Trump didn't run, DeSantis is in the, certainly in the top three of people you

00:36:10.600 consider. I think Tom Cotton's got to be in the conversation. Let me ask you this. We'll

00:36:18.980 throw out this name. I probably have more right-leaning audience, even though I'm not

00:36:25.600 personally right-leaning. But what do you think of Tom Cotton? Just that. Give me a Tom

00:36:35.480 Cotton Flash opinion. Too young. Somebody says too boring. Yeah, a bit cold. Too neoconish,

00:36:51.880 somebody says. Not charismatic enough. Big balls. I agree with that one. Truthful. No charisma.

00:37:04.080 No charisma. No charisma. Well, if you say he has no charisma, why are we talking about

00:37:09.320 him? I mean, why is he in the top three names that you think of for president if he doesn't

00:37:17.600 have charisma? I don't think, I'm not sure that that's a fair comment. I think he does have

00:37:26.360 charisma. But we also haven't seen him in full presidential mode. Because, you know, people

00:37:36.900 can take on a different personality a little bit. So if you take, for example, Al Gore. Al

00:37:43.600 Gore seemed a little stiff. But he loosened up during the campaign a little bit. Did his

00:37:49.120 best? Not completely. Anyway, I'm very pro Tom Cotton if Trump doesn't run. Because he's

00:38:02.060 strong on opposing China. And I think that's our biggest challenge. And I haven't seen him

00:38:08.380 being completely wrong on too many topics or anything that I can think of, actually. So he

00:38:14.240 seems reasonable and patriotic. And I like where his brain ends up on a lot of stuff. Yeah,

00:38:27.280 picking Cotton would just sound funny. Yeah. You know, it's not a joke. I don't think that

00:38:33.860 black people will vote for a man named Cotton. That's not a joke. You think that, like, okay,

00:38:41.720 haha, they know it's just his name. They're not going to vote against him because his name

00:38:45.680 is Cotton. No, they will. They just won't know it. It's one of those things that would

00:38:51.840 be that little bit of thing in the back of your head that causes you to think there's some

00:38:56.080 other reason you're not voting for him. Don't take a good senator out of the Senate. Well,

00:39:01.880 unless he could be replaced easily.

00:39:12.840 Super Bubble says,

00:39:14.000 I'm black and don't like him. But why?

00:39:18.340 Yeah, and why haven't they

00:39:19.420 fired any generals yet? I'm seeing that comment there.

00:39:22.940 Why have no...

00:39:23.980 Let me give you a little update of something that happened

00:39:27.960 locally. I'm not going to name

00:39:29.880 the business, right? So I'm going to talk about a

00:39:33.120 a retail establishment

00:39:35.420 that I happened to visit the other day. And

00:39:39.340 for reasons that I also won't mention, it was super crowded.

00:39:44.300 So it was an indoor space

00:39:45.920 in which people were, you know, just

00:39:48.920 bumped up against each other like a party.

00:39:52.760 Zero masks.

00:39:54.940 Zero.

00:39:55.320 Now, we have full mask mandate for indoor stuff.

00:39:59.040 The employees all had masks on.

00:40:02.640 Zero people had masks in the establishment.

00:40:06.060 Why?

00:40:07.460 The answer was that there were too many people without masks.

00:40:11.420 If one person isn't wearing a mask,

00:40:14.480 you can imagine the staff would say,

00:40:16.140 oh, do you notice everybody's wearing masks?

00:40:18.380 You know, put on a mask or we'll have to ask you to leave.

00:40:21.360 But

00:40:21.880 if you have a hundred people without masks,

00:40:24.800 you're done.

00:40:28.180 You're done.

00:40:29.060 And a hundred people without masks

00:40:30.680 walked in the door.

00:40:33.260 And then they just said,

00:40:34.420 all right, what do you want to buy?

00:40:35.480 And then they just sold it to them.

00:40:37.400 A hundred people.

00:40:38.780 No masks.

00:40:40.700 Now,

00:40:41.300 it wasn't really civil disobedience.

00:40:43.820 It was just young people 0.99

00:40:46.160 and they saw the people without masks

00:40:47.860 and they just did the same.

00:40:49.980 So,

00:40:50.640 here's the thing that you can't predict.

00:40:54.560 The tipping point.

00:40:57.640 Right?

00:40:58.700 Because there is a tipping point

00:41:00.160 where enough people will show up

00:41:02.300 without masks

00:41:03.160 for any given situation

00:41:04.860 that it can't be,

00:41:06.640 it just can't be,

00:41:08.100 you know,

00:41:09.720 enforced.

00:41:10.080 So the only way it can be enforced

00:41:12.880 is if only a few people

00:41:14.840 don't wear masks.

00:41:16.780 As soon as you get to,

00:41:18.100 I don't know,

00:41:18.520 what,

00:41:18.800 10%?

00:41:20.580 20%?

00:41:21.700 If you had

00:41:22.520 consistent 20% people

00:41:25.220 just not wearing a mask

00:41:27.420 and making a thing out of it,

00:41:28.860 you know,

00:41:29.040 making you,

00:41:29.640 make them throw you out of the business,

00:41:32.900 it's too much.

00:41:34.120 It would overwhelm

00:41:35.240 any enforcement capability.

00:41:37.460 So about 10%,

00:41:38.360 20% disobedience

00:41:39.120 disobedience

00:41:39.840 and it's all done.

00:41:41.800 How close are we

00:41:42.820 to a 10% disobedience?

00:41:46.740 Probably always pretty close.

00:41:49.080 Right?

00:41:49.540 At the moment,

00:41:50.380 it looks like people

00:41:51.000 are completely compliant.

00:41:52.840 I mean,

00:41:53.460 99%,

00:41:54.300 right?

00:41:55.060 And

00:41:55.500 it makes you think

00:41:58.340 that it would take a lot

00:42:00.040 for that 99% compliance

00:42:02.920 to even waver

00:42:03.960 because it's just so solid.

00:42:06.100 99% of people

00:42:07.280 do wear masks

00:42:08.200 where they're told

00:42:08.780 to wear masks.

00:42:10.660 But

00:42:11.100 10% is all it would take

00:42:13.240 for the whole thing

00:42:13.900 to fall apart.

00:42:14.900 I feel like we're closer

00:42:16.140 to 10%

00:42:16.980 than we think.

00:42:19.540 And at the moment,

00:42:20.500 there is just enough

00:42:21.720 trust and goodwill

00:42:22.840 in the country

00:42:23.440 and people

00:42:24.620 don't want to be

00:42:25.500 the one to cause trouble

00:42:26.580 that we're barely

00:42:29.300 limping by

00:42:30.280 with this mask mandate stuff.

00:42:33.220 But it could

00:42:33.640 fall apart

00:42:34.480 in a heartbeat.

00:42:38.260 Big stores

00:42:38.960 in Westchester,

00:42:40.500 New York,

00:42:41.140 have 10%

00:42:42.140 no masks.

00:42:43.960 We're getting there.

00:42:44.560 You know,

00:42:52.040 the sign

00:42:53.000 that would make

00:42:54.180 the mask problem

00:42:55.200 go away

00:42:55.720 if you put it

00:42:56.420 on your retail

00:42:57.000 establishment

00:42:57.660 would be,

00:42:58.720 and I'm seeing this

00:42:59.300 in the comments,

00:43:00.240 the sign would say

00:43:01.160 masks are mandated

00:43:02.220 by the state.

00:43:04.500 They did not provide

00:43:05.760 resources

00:43:06.300 for enforcement.

00:43:09.700 How about that?

00:43:11.320 Masks are mandated

00:43:12.360 by the state.

00:43:13.140 We ask you

00:43:13.620 to wear a mask.

00:43:14.560 The state

00:43:15.460 has not provided us

00:43:16.680 with any resources

00:43:17.680 for enforcement.

00:43:19.900 And you're done.

00:43:22.000 Because those

00:43:22.780 are just

00:43:23.180 true statements.

00:43:24.720 It's required.

00:43:25.840 We ask you

00:43:26.400 to wear them.

00:43:27.700 They gave us

00:43:28.480 no resources

00:43:29.340 for enforcement.

00:43:31.960 You don't have

00:43:33.080 to tell people

00:43:33.660 what to do.

00:43:34.960 They're going to

00:43:35.580 figure it out

00:43:36.020 pretty quickly.

00:43:41.560 All right.

00:43:42.360 I'm going to

00:43:42.640 take some questions

00:43:43.380 because,

00:43:44.880 as I said,

00:43:45.280 today's a little

00:43:45.700 bit of a slow

00:43:46.540 news day.

00:43:47.600 We're thinking

00:43:48.400 backwards this week

00:43:50.120 to 9-11.

00:43:51.540 So let's think

00:43:52.500 forwards a little bit.

00:43:53.880 Does anybody

00:43:54.280 have any predictions

00:43:55.660 they'd like me

00:43:56.340 to go out on a limb

00:43:57.160 for?

00:43:57.780 Or any clarifications

00:43:59.980 or complaints

00:44:01.580 about anything

00:44:02.220 I've said?

00:44:02.740 How does Trump

00:44:08.180 overcome the

00:44:08.900 persuasion that

00:44:09.600 he's a racist

00:44:10.220 if he runs

00:44:10.980 again?

00:44:11.720 Well, it didn't

00:44:12.280 stop him from

00:44:12.900 winning last time.

00:44:14.740 You know,

00:44:15.180 there's so many

00:44:16.000 things that could

00:44:16.740 change what

00:44:18.420 happens in 2024.

00:44:19.900 And probably a lot

00:44:21.080 of them will happen

00:44:21.680 between now and then.

00:44:23.580 One of those things

00:44:24.560 is, what happens

00:44:25.500 if one of the

00:44:26.120 audits finds out

00:44:27.420 there is a problem?

00:44:28.400 That's like a

00:44:31.160 gigantic wild card,

00:44:32.800 isn't it?

00:44:34.120 Because between

00:44:35.000 now and 2024,

00:44:37.000 I feel like we'll

00:44:37.880 know for sure

00:44:38.700 if any audit

00:44:40.380 found any big

00:44:41.240 problems.

00:44:43.340 What if they do

00:44:44.320 or what if they

00:44:44.940 don't?

00:44:45.920 Well, if they don't

00:44:46.740 find any big

00:44:47.420 problems, it's

00:44:48.560 going to be hard

00:44:48.980 for Trump to win.

00:44:50.420 Because his claim

00:44:51.500 was there were

00:44:52.740 big problems.

00:44:54.420 And if we haven't

00:44:55.680 found any in four

00:44:56.600 years, it's not

00:44:58.380 going to look

00:44:58.840 very credible.

00:45:00.320 And I think

00:45:00.700 that's really

00:45:01.180 going to work

00:45:01.840 against them,

00:45:02.420 especially with

00:45:02.920 the January 6th

00:45:03.820 thing hanging

00:45:04.220 over his head.

00:45:05.600 But what if,

00:45:07.840 and I'm predicting

00:45:08.940 this won't happen,

00:45:09.820 by the way,

00:45:10.340 but what if

00:45:11.000 they find it?

00:45:14.800 Let me ask you

00:45:15.680 this, a direct

00:45:16.240 question.

00:45:17.460 Under the

00:45:18.160 hypothetical

00:45:18.920 possibility

00:45:21.660 that I

00:45:23.260 predict won't

00:45:24.600 happen,

00:45:25.500 but let's say

00:45:25.920 it does,

00:45:26.940 and there's

00:45:27.460 some massive

00:45:27.960 fraud found

00:45:28.680 in one of

00:45:29.160 the key

00:45:29.740 states.

00:45:31.600 Could Trump

00:45:32.560 possibly lose

00:45:35.000 under that

00:45:36.020 scenario?

00:45:37.520 I don't think

00:45:38.340 so.

00:45:39.580 I think he

00:45:40.340 would just

00:45:40.640 walk into

00:45:41.100 the presidency.

00:45:43.260 What do you

00:45:43.960 think?

00:45:44.460 I think that

00:45:45.140 if some

00:45:47.060 shenanigans

00:45:47.700 were identified

00:45:48.500 that were of

00:45:49.200 scale, you

00:45:49.900 know, big

00:45:50.180 enough that

00:45:50.540 could have

00:45:50.820 made a

00:45:51.100 difference,

00:45:51.880 I think he

00:45:52.680 will walk

00:45:53.180 into the

00:45:53.540 presidency.

00:45:53.900 Because under

00:45:54.960 that situation,

00:45:55.880 January 6th

00:45:56.620 looks completely

00:45:57.500 different,

00:45:57.980 doesn't it?

00:45:59.420 What does

00:46:00.140 January 6th look

00:46:01.320 like if you're

00:46:02.840 sure that the

00:46:03.560 election was

00:46:04.140 fair?

00:46:04.500 It looks like

00:46:06.440 an insurrection,

00:46:07.420 doesn't it?

00:46:09.380 Even if you're

00:46:10.320 on Trump's

00:46:11.000 side, if you

00:46:13.260 thought the

00:46:13.740 election was

00:46:14.340 fair, then the

00:46:15.860 people trying to

00:46:16.720 change the

00:46:17.360 result, they

00:46:19.300 look a little

00:46:19.880 insurrection-y,

00:46:20.780 don't they?

00:46:21.120 But what if

00:46:22.840 you knew, let's

00:46:24.540 say, hypothetically,

00:46:25.900 some audit found

00:46:26.640 some big

00:46:27.020 problems, what's

00:46:28.580 it look like

00:46:28.980 then?

00:46:30.960 It doesn't

00:46:31.620 look like an

00:46:32.080 insurrection,

00:46:32.660 does it?

00:46:33.760 It looks like a

00:46:34.820 bunch of

00:46:35.160 patriots stopping

00:46:36.620 an insurrection.

00:46:38.700 Do you know

00:46:39.320 why it would

00:46:39.660 look like that?

00:46:41.260 Because it

00:46:41.840 would be.

00:46:42.960 That's exactly

00:46:43.820 what it would

00:46:44.220 be.

00:46:44.720 If we find

00:46:45.480 that the

00:46:46.480 protesters on

00:46:47.780 January 6th

00:46:48.480 were right,

00:46:49.140 and it

00:46:51.300 was a

00:46:51.660 stolen

00:46:51.920 election,

00:46:53.360 it's not

00:46:55.160 an insurrection,

00:46:56.520 it's stopping

00:46:57.760 an insurrection.

00:46:59.220 And that

00:46:59.540 would happen

00:46:59.880 instantly.

00:47:00.640 The moment

00:47:01.280 you knew

00:47:01.960 that the

00:47:02.940 facts were

00:47:03.700 different than

00:47:04.300 presented,

00:47:04.800 it would

00:47:05.900 immediately turn

00:47:06.580 into a

00:47:06.860 different

00:47:07.040 situation.

00:47:10.400 Let me

00:47:11.020 put it this

00:47:11.420 way.

00:47:12.160 What would

00:47:12.480 happen,

00:47:13.580 hypothetically,

00:47:15.360 hypothetically,

00:47:16.460 what would

00:47:16.720 happen if we

00:47:17.760 found out that

00:47:18.500 the election

00:47:19.000 was stolen?

00:47:20.860 And we

00:47:21.520 had a whole

00:47:21.900 bunch of

00:47:22.360 prosecutions

00:47:23.180 for serious

00:47:24.580 crimes.

00:47:25.220 I mean,

00:47:25.420 people injuring

00:47:28.800 police officers

00:47:29.720 and stuff,

00:47:30.120 serious crimes.

00:47:32.900 I would

00:47:33.700 pardon all

00:47:36.120 of them

00:47:36.460 if I could.

00:47:39.180 Yeah.

00:47:39.420 If we find

00:47:40.020 out the

00:47:40.300 election was

00:47:40.960 stolen,

00:47:42.040 I think

00:47:42.440 every one of

00:47:43.160 the insurrectionists,

00:47:44.400 even the ones

00:47:44.940 who did

00:47:45.200 violence,

00:47:46.460 even the ones

00:47:47.080 who did

00:47:47.340 violence.

00:47:48.480 I think

00:47:49.040 they all

00:47:49.460 have to

00:47:49.760 be pardoned.

00:47:52.300 But that's

00:47:53.080 a big standard

00:47:53.820 and I don't

00:47:54.260 think we'll

00:47:54.620 reach it.

00:47:55.400 So my

00:47:55.860 prediction is

00:47:57.020 we will not

00:47:57.740 find massive

00:47:58.700 fraud.

00:47:59.300 I'm not

00:47:59.620 saying it

00:47:59.940 wasn't there,

00:48:00.580 I just don't

00:48:01.020 think we'll

00:48:01.320 find any.

00:48:04.340 What if

00:48:04.900 there are

00:48:05.160 prosecutions

00:48:05.760 for the

00:48:06.080 Russian hoax?

00:48:07.460 I think

00:48:08.200 that's too

00:48:09.420 much in

00:48:09.780 our rearview

00:48:11.520 mirror at

00:48:11.940 this point.

00:48:12.300 There's

00:48:15.080 another

00:48:15.320 Scott

00:48:15.660 belief,

00:48:16.320 yes.

00:48:17.320 Midterm

00:48:17.700 prediction.

00:48:19.140 Well,

00:48:20.060 the trouble

00:48:20.480 with the

00:48:20.780 midterms is

00:48:21.380 we still

00:48:21.820 don't know

00:48:22.280 if the

00:48:22.720 voters have

00:48:23.320 any impact.

00:48:24.760 It might

00:48:25.380 be just

00:48:25.740 the rule

00:48:26.280 changes that

00:48:27.080 matter.

00:48:28.700 In the

00:48:29.360 same way

00:48:29.740 that gerrymandering

00:48:30.700 is the only

00:48:31.180 thing that

00:48:31.540 matters in

00:48:33.320 many cases.

00:48:34.620 So it's

00:48:35.120 not really

00:48:35.720 the voters

00:48:36.180 who make

00:48:37.200 much difference.

00:48:38.240 So if the

00:48:38.700 voters made

00:48:39.280 a difference,

00:48:39.880 I would think

00:48:40.340 that the

00:48:40.860 2022 election

00:48:42.120 would go

00:48:42.540 for the

00:48:42.840 Republicans.

00:48:44.280 But if

00:48:44.880 the voters

00:48:45.340 don't make

00:48:45.840 any difference

00:48:46.400 because,

00:48:47.500 I don't know,

00:48:47.900 elections are

00:48:48.500 rigged or

00:48:49.160 gerrymandering or

00:48:50.320 anything else,

00:48:51.520 then things

00:48:52.220 stay about the

00:48:52.760 same.

00:48:58.560 All right.

00:49:00.640 Let's see.

00:49:01.220 If voting

00:49:01.440 made any,

00:49:01.860 yeah,

00:49:02.840 Mark Twain

00:49:03.480 said,

00:49:03.860 if voting

00:49:04.380 made any

00:49:04.740 difference,

00:49:05.160 they wouldn't

00:49:05.400 let us do

00:49:05.880 it.

00:49:08.720 What is

00:49:09.320 your options

00:49:09.940 once you

00:49:10.400 recognize

00:49:10.800 somebody

00:49:11.180 who's

00:49:11.340 having

00:49:11.540 cognitive

00:49:11.980 dissonance,

00:49:12.760 what are

00:49:13.240 your options?

00:49:14.380 I don't

00:49:15.000 know that

00:49:15.240 anybody's

00:49:15.580 ever solved

00:49:16.060 that.

00:49:17.140 Once somebody

00:49:17.940 is triggered

00:49:18.480 into cognitive

00:49:19.320 dissonance,

00:49:20.420 it's like

00:49:21.000 you're talking

00:49:21.460 to an insane

00:49:22.220 person.

00:49:23.720 You know,

00:49:23.920 any facts

00:49:24.900 or anything,

00:49:25.600 they'll just

00:49:25.980 bounce off.

00:49:27.720 So usually

00:49:28.500 when cognitive

00:49:29.200 dissonance

00:49:29.680 happens,

00:49:30.760 you just

00:49:31.980 have to walk

00:49:32.500 away.

00:49:33.760 Now,

00:49:34.200 I never

00:49:34.840 do that.

00:49:36.560 Instead,

00:49:37.180 what I do

00:49:37.720 is I point

00:49:38.700 out the

00:49:39.100 person's

00:49:39.560 cognitive

00:49:39.980 dissonance

00:49:40.620 and explain

00:49:41.500 what the

00:49:41.880 trigger was

00:49:42.560 and how

00:49:43.300 I don't

00:49:43.660 have a

00:49:43.980 trigger.

00:49:44.960 So if

00:49:45.400 you're

00:49:45.560 wondering

00:49:45.780 if I'm

00:49:46.180 the one

00:49:46.420 with the

00:49:46.680 cognitive

00:49:47.040 dissonance,

00:49:48.140 you can

00:49:48.480 look to

00:49:48.840 see what

00:49:49.160 triggers 1.00

00:49:49.500 cognitive

00:49:49.920 dissonance

00:49:50.380 and you

00:49:50.640 can see

00:49:50.900 I don't

00:49:51.140 have any.

00:49:52.780 But you

00:49:53.080 can see

00:49:53.340 that you

00:49:53.660 do.

00:49:55.400 That's the

00:49:55.780 best you

00:49:56.120 can do.

00:49:56.780 Do you

00:49:56.980 think that

00:49:57.300 that causes 0.52

00:49:57.780 people to

00:49:58.200 say,

00:49:58.400 oh,

00:49:58.580 you know,

00:49:58.840 that's a

00:49:59.100 good point.

00:49:59.900 Now that

00:50:00.320 you've taught

00:50:01.160 me how to

00:50:01.580 spot cognitive

00:50:02.340 dissonance,

00:50:03.140 I can

00:50:03.580 clearly see

00:50:04.260 that I

00:50:04.700 had a

00:50:05.020 trigger and

00:50:06.140 so I got

00:50:06.600 triggered into

00:50:07.180 it,

00:50:07.640 whereas you

00:50:08.120 had no

00:50:08.540 trigger and

00:50:09.040 so therefore

00:50:09.480 presumably you

00:50:10.240 were not.

00:50:11.620 Has anybody

00:50:12.280 ever said

00:50:12.940 that to

00:50:13.260 me?

00:50:15.120 Nope.

00:50:17.020 No, they 1.00

00:50:17.660 just get

00:50:18.000 angry because

00:50:19.440 they're pretty

00:50:19.920 sure they

00:50:20.280 don't have

00:50:20.600 cognitive

00:50:20.960 dissonance.

00:50:23.080 Sky has

00:50:23.780 some

00:50:24.100 dissonance

00:50:24.620 on certain

00:50:25.220 topics.

00:50:25.680 You should

00:50:25.920 assume that

00:50:26.380 to be true.

00:50:27.020 Yeah, of

00:50:27.340 course.

00:50:27.580 you

00:50:35.080 explained it

00:50:35.700 worked on

00:50:36.120 you,

00:50:36.400 really?

00:50:40.460 Somebody

00:50:40.900 says that

00:50:41.340 worked on

00:50:41.800 them.

00:50:44.240 Sound

00:50:44.680 quality is

00:50:45.280 my trigger,

00:50:45.840 yeah.

00:50:49.260 All right.

00:50:50.980 Does Tulsi

00:50:51.820 run again in

00:50:52.500 2024 and

00:50:53.580 if so,

00:50:54.000 what party?

00:50:55.120 I don't

00:50:55.380 know.

00:50:56.260 Running for

00:50:56.800 president seems

00:50:57.520 to be good

00:50:58.020 for her and

00:50:59.400 I think

00:50:59.640 people like

00:51:00.400 her voice to

00:51:01.940 be part of

00:51:02.400 the mix.

00:51:03.540 So I think

00:51:03.880 a lot of

00:51:04.300 it has to

00:51:04.620 do with

00:51:04.840 the fact

00:51:05.140 that just

00:51:05.900 both people

00:51:06.460 on the

00:51:06.720 left and

00:51:07.140 the right

00:51:07.580 have support

00:51:09.940 for her so

00:51:10.420 she's a

00:51:11.260 unicorn like

00:51:11.920 that.

00:51:13.020 I saw

00:51:13.360 the latest

00:51:14.160 polls say

00:51:15.380 that the

00:51:16.880 recall isn't

00:51:17.560 going to

00:51:17.780 work.

00:51:18.920 So apparently

00:51:19.440 Newsom has

00:51:20.640 so much

00:51:20.940 support in

00:51:21.420 California that

00:51:22.220 it went

00:51:23.840 from looking

00:51:24.460 like a close

00:51:25.160 race to

00:51:25.900 not so

00:51:26.560 close.

00:51:26.920 Now I

00:51:27.580 don't know

00:51:27.740 if the

00:51:27.980 polls are

00:51:28.340 right.

00:51:28.680 They could

00:51:28.920 be suppression

00:51:29.500 polls but

00:51:30.920 we'll see.

00:51:39.420 Let's see.

00:51:42.500 I'm just

00:51:45.100 looking at some

00:51:45.560 of your

00:51:45.720 comments.

00:51:46.200 That's why I'm

00:51:46.540 being quiet

00:51:46.980 here.

00:51:50.420 Are you a

00:51:50.840 refugee in

00:51:51.580 caipirousia?

00:51:54.560 Okay.

00:51:55.920 All right.

00:51:56.540 I know this

00:51:56.940 part is not

00:51:57.500 entertaining because

00:51:58.240 when you're just

00:51:58.900 watching me read

00:51:59.600 comments you're

00:52:01.000 sitting there

00:52:01.420 saying where's

00:52:02.020 my entertainment?

00:52:03.120 Damn it.

00:52:05.080 Why is poetry

00:52:06.160 persuasive?

00:52:06.920 I didn't think

00:52:07.340 it was.

00:52:09.380 Did I break my

00:52:11.060 not voting rule

00:52:12.040 for the recall

00:52:12.680 election?

00:52:13.200 No.

00:52:13.840 No, I haven't

00:52:14.400 voted in years.

00:52:17.340 Micro lesson on

00:52:18.300 mentoring.

00:52:19.480 Okay.

00:52:19.980 I can do

00:52:20.360 that.

00:52:23.420 Yeah.

00:52:23.960 I guess Yang

00:52:25.520 is starting a

00:52:26.260 new party.

00:52:26.840 I read.

00:52:27.980 I don't know

00:52:28.460 the details of

00:52:29.140 that.

00:52:33.660 Vax shedding.

00:52:34.640 I haven't heard

00:52:35.040 of that.

00:52:37.840 Yeah.

00:52:38.100 If the glove

00:52:38.700 fits you must

00:52:39.380 acquit.

00:52:39.800 Rhymes are 0.65

00:52:40.640 persuasive but

00:52:42.420 not poetry in

00:52:43.880 its large form.

00:52:47.100 All right.

00:52:47.440 I see some

00:52:49.580 requests for

00:52:51.380 mentoring tips,

00:52:53.840 how to get a

00:52:54.340 mentor.

00:52:56.380 And I will do

00:52:56.960 that.

00:52:59.820 Why not vote

00:53:00.620 third party?

00:53:01.340 It's a waste of

00:53:01.860 time.

00:53:06.140 The future of

00:53:07.080 Bitcoin.

00:53:08.940 You know, I

00:53:10.200 don't know if

00:53:10.600 anybody's good at

00:53:11.440 predicting the

00:53:12.380 future of stuff

00:53:13.100 but I would

00:53:14.380 just say this.

00:53:14.900 I think Bitcoin

00:53:15.640 has gone from

00:53:16.900 a speculative

00:53:17.800 asset to an

00:53:18.900 asset.

00:53:20.560 So if you're

00:53:22.360 looking at your

00:53:22.880 whole portfolio

00:53:23.620 and you're a

00:53:25.560 certain age,

00:53:26.580 I think it

00:53:27.520 doesn't make

00:53:28.120 sense to not

00:53:29.520 have crypto in

00:53:30.580 your portfolio.

00:53:31.220 So I have

00:53:33.480 some and I've

00:53:34.460 had crypto at

00:53:35.340 various times.

00:53:36.520 But I think we're

00:53:37.100 talking about

00:53:37.700 something in the

00:53:38.740 5% range.

00:53:39.760 If you have

00:53:41.400 more than that,

00:53:42.340 I feel like you're

00:53:43.140 getting ahead of

00:53:43.900 the risk-reward

00:53:45.020 curve a little

00:53:46.420 bit.

00:53:47.260 But no doubt

00:53:48.280 people have

00:53:48.720 gotten rich doing

00:53:49.440 exactly the

00:53:50.240 opposite of what

00:53:50.840 I just told you

00:53:51.440 to do.

00:53:52.120 But if you want

00:53:52.600 to play

00:53:52.820 conservative,

00:53:54.320 which I

00:53:55.160 recommend,

00:53:56.240 diversification is

00:53:57.300 the only thing

00:53:57.780 that ever makes

00:53:58.440 sense.

00:53:59.500 So you're

00:54:01.880 woefully

00:54:02.260 uninformed.

00:54:03.380 On which

00:54:03.860 topic?

00:54:05.680 I don't think

00:54:06.660 you're wrong,

00:54:07.140 by the way.

00:54:07.460 over on YouTube

00:54:08.540 somebody says

00:54:09.160 I'm woefully

00:54:10.140 uninformed.

00:54:11.460 That's just

00:54:11.940 true of

00:54:12.280 everybody.

00:54:13.820 So I

00:54:14.220 embrace that

00:54:15.680 comment as

00:54:16.400 100% true.

00:54:20.520 Gold,

00:54:21.440 I've never

00:54:22.480 wanted to own

00:54:23.140 gold,

00:54:23.900 even in the

00:54:24.700 context of a

00:54:25.880 diversification.

00:54:28.680 Because I

00:54:29.060 don't think

00:54:29.480 gold can go

00:54:30.240 to the moon,

00:54:31.740 but crypto

00:54:32.340 can.

00:54:33.880 So for the

00:54:34.860 same amount

00:54:35.320 of risk,

00:54:36.300 well,

00:54:36.940 let me say

00:54:38.420 this.

00:54:39.360 Here's

00:54:39.620 something I've

00:54:40.040 never said

00:54:40.420 in public

00:54:40.780 before.

00:54:42.000 For the

00:54:42.460 same amount

00:54:42.980 of risk,

00:54:45.780 crypto has

00:54:48.100 a bigger

00:54:48.600 upside.

00:54:49.740 Because the

00:54:50.660 crypto can

00:54:51.760 just keep

00:54:52.120 growing,

00:54:53.020 but gold

00:54:53.660 has sort

00:54:54.120 of a little

00:54:55.240 bit of a

00:54:55.700 natural limit.

00:54:57.900 Because you

00:54:58.520 can only use

00:54:59.300 it for so

00:54:59.800 many things,

00:55:01.140 there's only

00:55:02.140 so much

00:55:02.660 of it.

00:55:03.220 at least

00:55:05.800 with Bitcoin

00:55:06.300 you can

00:55:06.740 keep taking

00:55:07.700 smaller

00:55:08.160 fractions of

00:55:08.920 it forever.

00:55:16.400 Is that

00:55:18.140 because gold

00:55:18.700 is physical?

00:55:19.420 Yeah,

00:55:19.620 the physical

00:55:20.240 element of

00:55:20.900 gold puts

00:55:21.780 a limit on

00:55:22.480 its upside

00:55:23.440 potential,

00:55:24.100 yes.

00:55:24.900 That would

00:55:25.280 be one

00:55:25.800 of the

00:55:26.400 things.

00:55:26.680 where is

00:55:32.460 warp speed

00:55:33.140 for rapid

00:55:33.800 tests?

00:55:34.460 Well,

00:55:34.820 in a sense

00:55:35.300 we have

00:55:35.760 warp speed

00:55:36.920 for rapid

00:55:37.360 tests.

00:55:38.000 So let me

00:55:38.300 give Biden

00:55:38.820 some credit.

00:55:40.400 Biden did

00:55:40.960 what I think

00:55:41.620 Trump failed

00:55:43.000 at.

00:55:43.880 And I don't

00:55:44.220 use the

00:55:45.180 F word

00:55:45.760 about Trump

00:55:47.540 too often,

00:55:48.560 right?

00:55:48.980 Because I'm

00:55:49.480 more pro

00:55:51.080 his policies

00:55:52.160 than not.

00:55:52.640 But when

00:55:53.460 it came

00:55:53.720 to the

00:55:54.020 rapid

00:55:54.260 testing

00:55:54.660 stuff,

00:55:55.660 the

00:55:56.000 government

00:55:56.380 under

00:55:56.740 Trump

00:55:57.080 was

00:55:58.180 silent

00:55:58.820 about

00:55:59.160 it.

00:56:00.540 Which to

00:56:01.260 me seemed

00:56:02.040 like a

00:56:02.400 gigantic

00:56:02.900 failure,

00:56:03.720 if not

00:56:04.240 an evidence

00:56:05.160 of corruption.

00:56:06.400 I don't

00:56:06.720 mean Trump

00:56:07.160 himself,

00:56:07.740 but some

00:56:08.500 corruption

00:56:08.920 in the

00:56:09.980 administration.

00:56:11.800 But Biden

00:56:12.720 is apparently

00:56:13.340 doing the

00:56:14.060 Military

00:56:15.740 Powers Act

00:56:17.860 or something,

00:56:18.920 so he can

00:56:19.620 basically force

00:56:20.620 private industry

00:56:21.500 to make

00:56:21.960 more of

00:56:22.320 these tests

00:56:22.860 and I

00:56:23.460 imagine

00:56:23.900 they're

00:56:24.660 subsidizing.

00:56:26.200 So he's

00:56:26.460 using War

00:56:26.860 Powers?

00:56:27.320 War Powers

00:56:27.960 Act,

00:56:28.280 right?

00:56:29.080 So Biden

00:56:29.680 is using

00:56:30.100 that and

00:56:30.520 that's,

00:56:31.220 oh,

00:56:31.400 Defense,

00:56:32.060 I'm sorry,

00:56:32.680 Defense Production

00:56:33.500 Act.

00:56:33.960 Thank you for

00:56:34.500 correcting that.

00:56:35.220 It's the

00:56:35.540 Defense Production

00:56:36.500 Act.

00:56:37.560 And Biden

00:56:38.580 is using

00:56:39.000 it.

00:56:40.120 Trump

00:56:40.400 should have.

00:56:41.920 I don't

00:56:42.600 know what

00:56:42.880 changed,

00:56:43.960 you know,

00:56:44.240 unless there's

00:56:44.720 some improvement

00:56:45.360 in the quality

00:56:46.140 of the tests

00:56:46.660 or something.

00:56:47.620 But I

00:56:48.900 think that

00:56:49.560 was probably

00:56:51.100 the biggest

00:56:51.660 mistake

00:56:52.220 Trump made

00:56:53.000 is not

00:56:53.880 pushing hard

00:56:54.520 on rapid

00:56:55.060 testing.

00:56:56.020 And if

00:56:56.280 Biden is

00:56:56.860 getting that

00:56:57.320 right,

00:56:58.740 and he

00:56:59.360 might be,

00:57:00.200 I mean,

00:57:00.500 he's certainly

00:57:01.060 putting effort

00:57:01.600 into it

00:57:02.020 the right

00:57:02.400 way,

00:57:03.380 I think

00:57:04.820 you're going

00:57:05.120 to say

00:57:05.320 that's a

00:57:05.720 clean win

00:57:06.300 for Biden

00:57:06.820 and a

00:57:07.240 clean failure

00:57:07.880 for Trump.

00:57:09.400 There are

00:57:09.840 a lot of

00:57:10.280 those.

00:57:11.180 I wouldn't

00:57:11.620 say there

00:57:11.920 are too

00:57:12.080 many of

00:57:12.380 those,

00:57:12.600 but that's

00:57:12.860 a big

00:57:13.120 one,

00:57:14.100 based on

00:57:14.980 what we

00:57:15.260 know.

00:57:15.940 Now,

00:57:16.180 there might

00:57:16.400 be other

00:57:16.800 information,

00:57:17.380 because we're

00:57:17.680 not fully

00:57:18.520 informed on

00:57:19.200 what's

00:57:19.420 going on

00:57:19.800 there.

00:57:20.480 But from

00:57:21.160 the surface,

00:57:22.240 it looks

00:57:22.580 like a

00:57:23.080 gigantic

00:57:23.540 Biden win

00:57:24.500 and a

00:57:25.460 gigantic

00:57:25.920 Trump

00:57:26.660 failure.

00:57:28.460 But I

00:57:29.060 would be

00:57:29.340 open to

00:57:29.680 an argument

00:57:30.100 that there's

00:57:30.580 something I

00:57:30.960 don't know

00:57:31.300 about that

00:57:31.700 situation.

00:57:38.480 Yeah,

00:57:39.000 and I'm

00:57:39.180 hearing somebody

00:57:39.680 say that

00:57:40.220 having too

00:57:41.340 many rapid

00:57:42.060 tests would

00:57:43.560 make it look

00:57:44.080 like the

00:57:44.380 infection is

00:57:44.980 worse,

00:57:45.360 maybe,

00:57:45.820 because more

00:57:46.180 people would

00:57:46.580 get tested.

00:57:47.080 I don't

00:57:47.480 know.

00:57:47.940 But that's

00:57:48.320 not a

00:57:48.600 good enough

00:57:48.900 reason.

00:57:54.780 Economy

00:57:55.220 will collapse

00:57:55.880 soon because

00:57:56.480 there's too

00:57:56.920 much cash

00:57:57.500 in the

00:57:57.820 system.

00:57:58.760 You know,

00:57:59.360 the one

00:57:59.900 thing that

00:58:00.280 you can

00:58:00.560 predict about

00:58:01.240 the economy,

00:58:02.460 and you'll

00:58:02.820 be right

00:58:03.200 every time,

00:58:04.080 there's only

00:58:04.400 one thing

00:58:04.840 you can

00:58:05.140 predict about

00:58:05.740 it,

00:58:05.980 and no,

00:58:06.660 you will

00:58:06.920 be right.

00:58:08.160 You can't

00:58:08.480 predict it.

00:58:09.880 That's it.

00:58:10.700 You can't

00:58:11.120 predict it.

00:58:12.060 Most people

00:58:12.760 who are smart

00:58:13.560 would say,

00:58:14.460 well,

00:58:14.700 we've put so

00:58:15.300 much cash

00:58:16.140 into the

00:58:16.540 system,

00:58:17.080 it has

00:58:18.040 to

00:58:18.220 collapse.

00:58:19.620 But it

00:58:20.180 should have

00:58:20.440 collapsed

00:58:20.760 already.

00:58:22.900 We should

00:58:24.460 have all

00:58:24.720 been dead

00:58:25.140 a long

00:58:25.420 time ago.

00:58:26.200 For some

00:58:26.660 reason,

00:58:27.340 and I'm

00:58:27.640 not sure

00:58:27.900 anybody

00:58:28.180 understands

00:58:28.660 it totally,

00:58:29.820 national

00:58:30.980 debt,

00:58:32.420 especially

00:58:32.860 when you're

00:58:33.320 a nuclear

00:58:33.740 power,

00:58:35.220 doesn't seem

00:58:36.160 to be the

00:58:36.700 same as

00:58:37.180 personal

00:58:37.640 debt.

00:58:38.900 It operates

00:58:39.780 differently,

00:58:40.420 and we don't

00:58:40.820 know exactly

00:58:41.660 where it

00:58:42.500 can go or

00:58:43.100 how bad

00:58:43.660 it can get.

00:58:44.820 But if you

00:58:45.320 have nuclear

00:58:45.820 weapons,

00:58:46.260 you don't

00:58:47.580 always have

00:58:48.100 to pay

00:58:48.360 back your

00:58:48.760 bills.

00:58:53.340 So we'll

00:58:54.000 see.

00:58:56.340 Somebody says

00:58:57.100 they'll get

00:58:57.420 the vaccine

00:58:58.160 if I

00:58:58.740 personally

00:58:59.200 inject them.

00:59:01.840 Challenge

00:59:02.320 accepted.

00:59:04.880 I've never

00:59:05.540 given anybody

00:59:06.180 an injection,

00:59:07.280 but it would

00:59:08.000 be kind of

00:59:08.460 funny to

00:59:08.840 stick a

00:59:09.160 needle into

00:59:09.580 somebody's

00:59:09.960 arm.

00:59:10.220 I don't

00:59:12.440 think that's

00:59:12.880 legal.

00:59:14.160 But if

00:59:15.300 it's legal,

00:59:16.280 I'll come

00:59:16.960 give you a

00:59:17.440 jab.

00:59:18.300 You might

00:59:18.700 not like

00:59:19.120 it.

00:59:21.420 Will I

00:59:22.040 get a

00:59:22.300 booster?

00:59:22.960 I will

00:59:23.580 wait until

00:59:24.200 the last

00:59:24.800 minute so

00:59:26.020 that I have

00:59:26.360 the most

00:59:26.800 current

00:59:27.500 information.

00:59:28.940 So telling

00:59:29.540 you in

00:59:29.920 advance whether

00:59:30.660 I'd get

00:59:31.020 one wouldn't

00:59:31.500 make sense.

00:59:32.600 What kind

00:59:33.240 of a decision

00:59:33.780 would that

00:59:34.160 be?

00:59:34.760 Because in

00:59:35.520 advance I

00:59:36.060 don't have

00:59:36.340 as much

00:59:36.660 information as

00:59:37.380 I'll have

00:59:37.660 later.

00:59:38.920 So since

00:59:39.900 I was late

00:59:40.740 to get

00:59:41.240 vaccinated,

00:59:42.060 I waited

00:59:42.460 also to

00:59:43.620 get as

00:59:43.920 much

00:59:44.100 information

00:59:44.640 and other

00:59:45.560 people's

00:59:45.960 problems

00:59:46.360 known as

00:59:47.140 possible.

00:59:47.860 I'll just

00:59:48.280 do the

00:59:48.560 same thing

00:59:48.900 with the

00:59:49.100 booster.

00:59:49.920 So at

00:59:50.220 the moment

00:59:50.660 my immunity

00:59:51.800 should be

00:59:52.280 at a peak

00:59:52.860 because of

00:59:54.260 when I got

00:59:54.820 the second

00:59:55.380 shot.

00:59:56.680 So I think

00:59:57.020 I'm at my

00:59:57.480 peak right

00:59:57.960 now of

00:59:58.560 immunity.

01:00:00.160 Six months

01:00:00.900 from now,

01:00:02.580 yeah,

01:00:02.960 I'd probably

01:00:03.320 look at the

01:00:03.720 booster.

01:00:05.160 But I'll

01:00:05.540 know more

01:00:05.920 by then.

01:00:07.380 Yeah,

01:00:09.960 wait until

01:00:10.300 your antibodies

01:00:10.880 drop.

01:00:15.120 Why doesn't

01:00:16.020 Biden mandate

01:00:16.780 anybody getting

01:00:17.460 federal money

01:00:18.180 must be

01:00:18.680 vaccinated?

01:00:21.220 I don't

01:00:21.840 know.

01:00:22.060 Is that an

01:00:22.400 option?

01:00:23.920 Will you

01:00:24.480 antibody test

01:00:25.420 first?

01:00:26.660 Oh,

01:00:26.920 that's a

01:00:27.200 good question.

01:00:27.940 I think

01:00:30.220 the antibody

01:00:30.900 test,

01:00:32.440 I don't

01:00:32.800 know,

01:00:33.080 can you

01:00:33.320 just get

01:00:33.720 one?

01:00:34.640 Can you

01:00:35.000 just request

01:00:35.940 an antibody

01:00:36.540 test?

01:00:37.380 I'd have

01:00:38.060 to know

01:00:38.320 more about

01:00:38.700 that.

01:00:38.960 If it's

01:00:39.220 possible and

01:00:39.900 you can

01:00:40.160 get them

01:00:40.480 on demand,

01:00:42.300 maybe.

01:00:43.560 But,

01:00:43.920 oh,

01:00:44.460 yeah,

01:00:44.940 no,

01:00:45.120 I'll

01:00:45.220 probably

01:00:45.400 get the

01:00:45.680 booster

01:00:45.920 just for

01:00:46.400 social

01:00:46.760 reasons.

01:00:51.160 My wife

01:00:51.920 has to

01:00:52.220 take a

01:00:52.480 vaccine

01:00:52.820 against

01:00:53.200 her will

01:00:53.700 or lose

01:00:54.240 her job.

01:00:54.820 What would

01:00:55.180 you do?

01:00:55.860 Quit or

01:00:56.400 take the

01:00:56.800 jab against 0.98

01:00:57.480 your judgment?

01:00:59.140 I would

01:00:59.700 take the

01:01:00.360 jab.

01:01:01.660 Now,

01:01:03.000 so let me

01:01:04.180 restate that

01:01:04.880 question.

01:01:05.140 The question

01:01:05.640 is,

01:01:06.000 if your

01:01:06.300 employer

01:01:06.700 says you

01:01:07.980 have to

01:01:08.280 get the

01:01:08.620 shot or

01:01:09.160 you're

01:01:09.360 fired,

01:01:10.380 what do

01:01:10.720 you do?

01:01:11.780 If your

01:01:12.680 conviction is

01:01:13.420 you don't

01:01:13.660 want the 0.55

01:01:13.960 shot,

01:01:14.660 I told you

01:01:15.520 what I

01:01:15.860 would do.

01:01:17.120 I would

01:01:17.620 get the

01:01:17.900 shot.

01:01:19.020 Why?

01:01:20.160 Because I

01:01:20.680 always take

01:01:21.040 the money

01:01:21.400 decision.

01:01:23.100 So people

01:01:23.720 ask me,

01:01:24.560 hey,

01:01:24.740 I've got

01:01:24.980 this opportunity

01:01:26.300 for a job

01:01:27.420 that would

01:01:27.720 pay more.

01:01:29.240 What should

01:01:29.840 I do?

01:01:31.180 I always

01:01:31.760 say,

01:01:32.000 take the

01:01:32.280 job,

01:01:33.200 because it

01:01:33.660 pays more.

01:01:35.220 I had a

01:01:35.640 friend who

01:01:36.060 said,

01:01:36.480 you know,

01:01:36.660 two ways

01:01:37.100 to calculate

01:01:37.680 my taxes.

01:01:39.120 Which way

01:01:39.640 should I

01:01:39.900 calculate it?

01:01:40.440 I think

01:01:40.700 they're both

01:01:41.040 legal.

01:01:42.200 Which way

01:01:42.640 should I

01:01:42.900 calculate it?

01:01:43.480 And I

01:01:43.700 say,

01:01:44.240 calculate it

01:01:45.100 the way

01:01:45.340 that you

01:01:45.600 pay the

01:01:45.940 least amount

01:01:46.440 of taxes.

01:01:47.420 I learned

01:01:47.820 that from

01:01:48.140 somebody else,

01:01:48.760 by the way.

01:01:51.000 Yeah,

01:01:51.680 the thing

01:01:52.340 that you

01:01:52.640 can measure

01:01:53.260 with certainty

01:01:53.880 is the

01:01:55.220 job.

01:01:56.660 The part

01:01:57.140 you don't

01:01:57.460 know anything

01:01:57.900 about is

01:01:58.380 the risk.

01:01:58.820 So if

01:02:00.200 you have

01:02:00.440 one thing

01:02:00.920 that definitely

01:02:01.640 matters,

01:02:03.000 a job,

01:02:04.700 and you

01:02:04.960 have another

01:02:05.320 thing that,

01:02:05.860 I don't know,

01:02:06.400 I can't really

01:02:06.920 compare these

01:02:07.480 two risks.

01:02:08.640 The risk

01:02:09.140 of getting

01:02:09.560 the vaccination

01:02:10.360 versus the 0.55

01:02:11.940 risk of the

01:02:12.440 COVID,

01:02:13.360 both under

01:02:13.980 1%.

01:02:14.680 So if you

01:02:16.000 have two

01:02:16.480 unfathomable

01:02:18.040 risks,

01:02:18.860 both way

01:02:19.500 under 1%,

01:02:20.460 but you

01:02:21.720 have this

01:02:22.080 big,

01:02:22.540 looming,

01:02:23.280 honking,

01:02:23.820 real-world

01:02:24.480 thing called

01:02:25.260 your job

01:02:26.200 and your

01:02:27.500 paycheck,

01:02:28.820 I would

01:02:30.380 make all

01:02:31.080 of my

01:02:31.360 decisions

01:02:31.760 based on

01:02:32.240 the real

01:02:32.580 parts,

01:02:33.940 the job

01:02:34.780 and the

01:02:35.980 paycheck.

01:02:36.680 That's the

01:02:37.040 part you

01:02:37.280 know,

01:02:38.060 and that

01:02:38.900 matters.

01:02:40.180 The part

01:02:40.460 you don't

01:02:40.860 know is

01:02:41.640 a risk

01:02:42.360 that's so

01:02:42.800 far under

01:02:43.220 1% that

01:02:45.360 you should

01:02:45.640 just ignore

01:02:46.140 it.

01:02:48.360 Now,

01:02:48.940 I would

01:02:49.220 love to

01:02:49.580 know what

01:02:49.900 happens when

01:02:50.380 you tell

01:02:50.640 your wife

01:02:51.000 that.

01:02:53.860 Because

01:02:54.300 that's more

01:02:56.300 a decision

01:02:56.780 about how

01:02:57.300 to make

01:02:57.600 decisions,

01:02:59.040 she should

01:02:59.540 put her 0.96

01:02:59.980 own opinions

01:03:01.100 into that

01:03:01.740 framework,

01:03:02.720 but how

01:03:03.340 you make

01:03:03.740 the decision

01:03:04.340 is to

01:03:05.700 ignore

01:03:06.180 anything

01:03:06.640 that's a

01:03:07.080 tiny risk

01:03:07.820 and you're

01:03:09.180 comparing it

01:03:09.720 to some

01:03:10.060 other tiny

01:03:10.600 unknown

01:03:11.000 risk that

01:03:11.540 you can't

01:03:11.940 possibly

01:03:12.440 calculate

01:03:13.040 for you

01:03:14.000 specifically.

01:03:16.100 So in

01:03:16.700 those cases,

01:03:17.620 always favor

01:03:18.260 the thing

01:03:18.680 that is

01:03:18.960 real and

01:03:20.240 also big,

01:03:21.560 your job.

01:03:22.960 Now,

01:03:23.560 could that

01:03:24.200 advice get

01:03:24.780 you killed?

01:03:25.280 Did I

01:03:26.540 just kill

01:03:27.000 some guy's

01:03:27.540 wife?

01:03:29.080 Maybe.

01:03:30.640 Maybe.

01:03:31.700 And you

01:03:32.240 shouldn't talk

01:03:32.800 in public

01:03:33.220 if you

01:03:33.560 can't take

01:03:33.980 that chance.

01:03:36.500 One of the

01:03:37.280 risks of

01:03:38.300 what I do

01:03:38.840 is I

01:03:39.740 could actually

01:03:40.120 kill somebody. 0.91

01:03:42.360 But you

01:03:43.120 have to be

01:03:43.940 comfortable

01:03:45.280 with that.

01:03:45.760 get the

01:03:54.480 jab,

01:03:54.920 keep the

01:03:55.220 job.

01:03:55.800 Yeah,

01:03:56.060 it's

01:03:56.180 jab or

01:03:56.620 job.

01:03:58.440 Are you

01:03:58.980 the first

01:03:59.340 one to

01:03:59.660 realize that

01:04:00.280 it's

01:04:00.560 jab or

01:04:01.120 job?

01:04:02.780 I feel

01:04:03.380 like that's

01:04:03.780 going to

01:04:03.940 be a

01:04:04.260 bumper

01:04:04.520 sticker.

01:04:05.820 Did

01:04:06.000 you get

01:04:06.260 the

01:04:06.400 jab or

01:04:06.780 the

01:04:06.880 job?

01:04:13.600 All right.

01:04:14.680 Pompeo for

01:04:15.320 president?

01:04:16.540 I don't

01:04:16.860 know if

01:04:17.180 you know,

01:04:18.060 I don't

01:04:18.440 dislike

01:04:18.860 Pompeo.

01:04:20.580 He's a

01:04:21.140 smart guy.

01:04:22.740 I don't

01:04:23.300 know if

01:04:23.560 he's got

01:04:23.880 quite the

01:04:25.020 charisma or

01:04:26.860 something.

01:04:27.900 Maybe he

01:04:28.300 does.

01:04:33.960 He trimmed

01:04:34.720 up.

01:04:36.040 Did

01:04:36.240 Trump lose

01:04:37.580 weight,

01:04:37.880 by the

01:04:38.040 way?

01:04:39.280 Because he

01:04:39.940 does look

01:04:40.400 younger.

01:04:40.720 I don't

01:04:41.020 know,

01:04:41.180 did he

01:04:41.380 have some

01:04:41.660 work done

01:04:42.080 or something?

01:04:42.540 He looks

01:04:42.920 younger.

01:04:43.280 I think

01:04:44.240 Jack

01:04:44.540 Posavik

01:04:45.060 noted

01:04:45.320 this,

01:04:45.720 that he

01:04:45.980 actually

01:04:46.300 looks

01:04:46.660 younger.

01:04:48.100 He does,

01:04:48.640 right?

01:04:51.440 He lost

01:04:52.180 15 pounds?

01:04:53.060 You wouldn't

01:04:53.300 even notice

01:04:53.760 15 pounds.

01:04:56.680 Did he

01:04:57.300 decide not

01:04:57.960 to use the

01:04:58.540 name dill

01:04:59.080 dog for

01:04:59.740 dog burp?

01:05:01.000 Or was

01:05:01.380 it pressure?

01:05:01.820 I made

01:05:02.920 that decision

01:05:03.460 myself.

01:05:09.900 You lost

01:05:10.740 30 pounds in

01:05:11.620 the last

01:05:11.880 nine months.

01:05:12.740 Good on

01:05:13.240 you.

01:05:14.740 Okay,

01:05:15.140 here's my

01:05:16.340 last question

01:05:16.920 of the

01:05:17.140 day.

01:05:18.640 I'm going

01:05:19.160 to ask

01:05:19.560 you if

01:05:19.980 during the

01:05:20.440 pandemic

01:05:20.860 you lost

01:05:23.100 weight or

01:05:23.960 gained weight.

01:05:25.900 You can

01:05:26.500 give me the

01:05:26.900 numbers if

01:05:27.440 you know

01:05:27.700 them,

01:05:28.240 but just

01:05:28.520 say lost

01:05:29.200 or gained.

01:05:30.060 Let's see

01:05:30.340 what we

01:05:30.620 did.

01:05:31.540 I'm going

01:05:31.860 to make

01:05:32.100 a prediction

01:05:32.580 that the

01:05:33.840 locals

01:05:34.220 platform

01:05:34.840 lost more

01:05:35.840 weight than

01:05:36.560 the YouTube.

01:05:39.160 Let's

01:05:39.480 watch.

01:05:41.100 On locals,

01:05:42.180 you can't

01:05:42.700 see it if

01:05:43.060 you're watching

01:05:43.380 on YouTube,

01:05:44.620 tons of

01:05:45.360 people lost

01:05:45.860 weight.

01:05:46.120 But also

01:05:47.120 lots of

01:05:47.460 people gained.

01:05:48.900 Lost 90

01:05:49.920 pounds?

01:05:52.020 Really?

01:05:53.700 30 pounds,

01:05:54.700 20 pounds,

01:05:55.800 10 pounds,

01:05:56.800 15.

01:05:57.280 These are

01:05:57.560 lost.

01:05:58.900 Down 30,

01:06:00.000 down 30,

01:06:01.340 lost 12.

01:06:01.980 This is all

01:06:02.400 on the

01:06:02.600 locals platform

01:06:03.320 by the way.

01:06:04.260 Looking over

01:06:04.820 on the

01:06:05.380 YouTube,

01:06:07.520 lost 25,

01:06:09.640 lost,

01:06:11.040 lost 20,

01:06:12.300 lost,

01:06:13.040 Jesus.

01:06:14.320 I'm sorry,

01:06:14.700 I know you

01:06:15.440 don't like it

01:06:15.880 when I,

01:06:16.120 use that

01:06:17.560 word.

01:06:18.860 Holy cow. 0.89

01:06:20.980 I feel like

01:06:21.760 I need to

01:06:22.160 give you a

01:06:22.680 standing

01:06:23.000 ovation.

01:06:25.500 And I

01:06:26.380 think I

01:06:26.680 will.

01:06:27.920 I think I

01:06:28.800 will.

01:06:29.760 Damn.

01:06:31.280 Damn.

01:06:32.280 Standing

01:06:32.660 ovation.

01:06:34.720 This is all

01:06:35.160 those people

01:06:35.660 who lost

01:06:37.220 weight during

01:06:37.700 the pandemic.

01:06:39.600 Lost

01:06:40.160 weight

01:06:40.740 during a

01:06:42.600 pandemic.

01:06:43.180 full

01:06:48.280 respect.

01:06:53.140 I'm down

01:06:53.860 a few

01:06:54.140 pounds,

01:06:55.400 but I'm

01:06:56.200 usually in

01:06:56.580 the same

01:06:57.280 range.

01:06:57.780 I don't

01:06:58.000 change too

01:06:58.800 much.

01:07:01.120 So,

01:07:02.860 all right.

01:07:07.200 Fixed your

01:07:07.900 back.

01:07:10.420 KB did.

01:07:12.240 How'd that

01:07:12.660 happen?

01:07:12.900 I don't

01:07:16.140 want to

01:07:16.360 ask.

01:07:19.140 Did they

01:07:19.640 get less

01:07:20.060 junk food?

01:07:20.740 Maybe?

01:07:21.580 Maybe?

01:07:22.180 All right,

01:07:22.540 that's all I

01:07:22.860 got for now,

01:07:23.460 and I will

01:07:23.760 talk to you

01:07:24.260 tomorrow.

01:07:24.760 on dan

01:07:34.020 count.

01:07:34.120 what's

01:07:34.700 going to

01:07:35.000 do no?

01:07:35.500 Go ahead

01:07:35.880 and

01:07:37.060 say can we

01:07:38.240 go ahead and

01:07:38.500 hold them

01:07:38.840 on a

01:07:39.000 Oft,

01:07:40.000 such an

01:07:40.580 old

01:07:41.140 thing.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - September 12, 2021

Episode 1497 Scott Adams： There Isn't Much News Today But Somehow I Make it Fascinating Anyway

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript