Episode 1537 Scott Adams： Trump Gets His Own Social Network and Everything is Broken. That Means Good Content Today
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
149.96515
Summary
A booster dose of the Pfizer Coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy of 95.6%. It looks like it's going to rain, and that's good news. CNN has a good dose of fake news.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Well, well, well, well. Look what just happened. Can you believe it? Yeah, what I'm talking
00:00:12.840
about is that you all showed up here on time for what will probably be the highlight of
00:00:18.840
your whole life, today's show. Yeah, you know, the rest of your life might have had some
00:00:23.340
good highlights, like, let's say, you know, your wedding or the birth of your children.
00:00:28.200
You know, those are good, too. Yada, yada, yada. But this, this is meaningful. This is the
00:00:35.400
best thing that's ever happened in any universe, in any metaverse, virtual AR or other, period.
00:00:43.820
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and nothing is better than it. And if you want to go to
00:00:49.120
yet another level, go to another level. Yeah. Who wants to take it to another level? All
00:00:55.780
of you. Well, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein,
00:01:00.600
a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
00:01:07.260
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes
00:01:13.940
everything better, especially your antibodies. Yeah, it's true. One sip of coffee will enlighten
00:01:22.800
your antibodies. Give them a little energy. If you have uncaffeinated antibodies, well,
00:01:30.180
you're just naked. It's like walking around naked. Let's give some caffeine to those antibodies.
00:01:39.800
Mmm. Can you feel them being a little bit more active? I think you can. I think you can.
00:01:45.760
Goosebumps. Wow. You can feel those antibodies now. Wake it up. It's true. They go to sleep
00:01:54.040
at night, but now they're awake. Well, here's the biggest news. It looks like it's going to
00:01:59.620
rain. Now, that doesn't seem like big news to you, wherever you live. Well, I live in California,
00:02:07.660
and it's going to rain. Oh, God, that's good news. Apparently, it's going to rain a lot,
00:02:16.620
like a shit ton of rain coming our way, like lots and lots of rain. Well, we can't get enough,
00:02:23.140
and that's good news. So, I like it when problems sort of solve themselves. Do we have any? Yeah,
00:02:29.940
oh, sure, there might be some mudslides. Pessimist. Pessimist, like, how about mudslides? Yeah,
00:02:36.700
there might be mudslides, but I'd rather have water. Well, here's the fake news. You ready for
00:02:44.000
the fake news? CNN has a good dose of fake news. I'll read what they wrote, and then you tell me
00:02:49.760
what is the fake part, okay? What is the fake part of this news? CNN says, a booster dose of the
00:02:57.180
Pfizer, blah, blah, blah, coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy. Can we all,
00:03:04.320
I got to take a little side road here. Can we all agree on one thing? I know we're, there's a lot of
00:03:13.240
division in the country. Might even be a little division on this live stream. But if there's one
00:03:19.560
thing we can all agree on, please, it's that pronouncing the word efficacy is really fun.
00:03:30.140
It makes you feel good when you say it. Makes you feel smart. Try it. Try it at home. Just say out
00:03:35.520
loud, efficacy. Yeah. Yeah, did you feel it? It's not like other words. It's fun to say. And it makes
00:03:45.000
you feel like you're really on top of your game. If you can pronounce efficacy, you know, nicely,
00:03:54.360
you look like you're, well, practically a scientist. Now, you're not any virologist, probably. But you
00:04:03.080
just learn to say efficacy just right. Well, anyway, back to my story of fake news from CNN. A booster
00:04:09.900
dose of the Pfizer, blah, blah, blah, coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy of 95.6%.
00:04:18.260
And that's in the phase three trial. And the company announced that the efficacy was consistent
00:04:27.120
irrespective of age, sex, race, ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. Oh, I like this new word,
00:04:34.260
comorbid conditions, because I've been saying comorbidities. Comorbidities is a cool word.
00:04:42.300
It's no, it's no efficacy. I think we can agree on that. But I like saying it. So I'm going to say
00:04:48.440
comorbid conditions now to make me sound smart. All right. What's the fake news? What's the fake news?
00:04:56.500
Anybody? Anybody? What's the fake news? I'm going to take it as true. Let's see. I will stipulate
00:05:03.000
that the 95.6% efficacy is accurate. But what's the fake part? Where's the fake news? Come on. You
00:05:13.260
know. You know where it is. Nobody? Really? I thought this one would be easier. All right. Let me tell
00:05:25.540
you. It's not the day one efficacy that anybody cares about. Am I wrong? Who is it who is really
00:05:35.520
obsessing about day one efficacy? It's not a day one efficacy story. It's a how fast does it wear off
00:05:43.380
story. Am I wrong? The story is how long it lasts. And that's not in the story. Because obviously they
00:05:51.180
can't know that because it's new. This is the this is just disgusting fake news. Because they've led you
00:05:59.120
to believe that the thing they told you is the important thing. And it's not. It's not. I mean,
00:06:03.840
it's great that the efficacy is that high. It's actually impressive. And whoever came up with this,
00:06:09.660
let's say, COVID shot. I don't like to call it a vaccine for reasons you understand. But it's still a
00:06:17.160
miracle. I mean, if it does this, it's kind of a miracle. So it's it's amazing. But, you know,
00:06:24.760
assuming it doesn't kill you. But I feel like they they didn't tell us the actual story. Because
00:06:31.540
that's the part that matters how long it lasts. Now, they don't know. But I feel like they have to
00:06:36.440
at least mention it. All right. How many of you saw me interview Bjorn Lomborg? So I did that not on
00:06:47.460
a live stream. I did it on a recorded interview. So I could have a proper two screen situation without
00:06:53.480
technical problems. And that's that's posted now on YouTube. So just search for if you just search for
00:07:01.080
Bjorn Lomborg. And my name, it'll pop right up. And you really should take the time. You should take
00:07:10.200
the time. Look at the other comments. You'll see that people enjoyed it a lot. And very similar in,
00:07:16.960
let's say, in theme to a lot of things you see from Michael Schellenberger, sort of the the smarter
00:07:23.380
way to look at climate and nuclear energy and stuff like that. But Lomborg has been saying this
00:07:30.940
for, I don't know, a long time. He's been on on this for a long time. And he's just a great
00:07:37.960
explainer. So if you want to see somebody who understands statistics and business and risk
00:07:43.960
management, you got to see Lomborg, right? So I don't like, let me let me say this as clearly as
00:07:51.740
possible. I don't really enjoy interviewing other people. Because the fun part is when I'm talking.
00:08:03.800
But I'm also completely aware that you're not in it for my fun. You know, you don't watch this
00:08:11.500
because I'm having fun. You're looking for some benefit for yourself, quite naturally. And it does
00:08:17.680
seem to me that the especially the author interviews. Let me get can I give some I need
00:08:24.520
some career advice. Let me take a pause here. I need some career advice. And this is serious.
00:08:29.860
This is serious questions, career advice. I don't love interviewing authors because of the homework.
00:08:40.200
You kind of have to read the book, right? I mean, you don't have to. But it's a reasonable
00:08:46.860
courtesy and expectation, especially if it's a recorded interview, and you're just going to do
00:08:51.960
that with the author, you kind of got to read the book. So reading books and then interviewing people
00:08:57.100
is, I don't know, 10 times harder than what I like to do every day, which is this. I don't know if you
00:09:04.540
can tell. But I would do this just for fun. Literally, literally, this experience is purely fun for me.
00:09:15.820
But the author interviews take more concentration and work. However, I think they're more useful.
00:09:21.880
All right, here's the part that I can only say in public because I have no sense of shame whatsoever,
00:09:27.600
which is a big advantage in life. I'm going to say something that nobody should say out loud
00:09:32.820
if they had any sense of dignity or shame or, you know, self-preservation. All right,
00:09:38.940
I'm just going to say it out loud. I think I'm the best in the world at interviewing people.
00:09:49.000
You're just going to have to deal with that for a moment. Now, I don't know that to be true,
00:09:55.020
right? If I had certainty about it, I'd be crazy. But based on my experience of just interviewing a
00:10:00.860
few people, I don't think anybody does it the way I do it. And I think it has more to do with the way
00:10:06.500
I do it than, you know, some natural quality I possess or something like that. So it's not so
00:10:12.060
much about me being awesome. And that's the part that keeps people from saying something like that
00:10:17.200
in public. I actually think I might be the best in the world at this. And I don't know why exactly.
00:10:25.100
Could be that I don't have as much partisanship. Could be that the windows that I use to look at
00:10:31.780
things or a little bit different or something. Somebody says Joe Rogan is hard to beat. Let me
00:10:42.280
make a statement and I'll leave no ambiguity here whatsoever. I'm way better than Joe Rogan at
00:10:49.280
interviewing people. It's not even close. Joe Rogan is a show in which, you know, you've got three
00:10:57.840
hours of content and he's great at it. You know, maybe the best ever. Maybe the best ever. If you
00:11:04.740
just look at his success and his audience and the impact he has, I think you could say Joe Rogan's show
00:11:09.900
is the best ever of, you know, anything in that genre. But in the narrow question of just doing an
00:11:17.260
interview, you don't do a three-hour interview. You could do three hours of content. Yeah, I mean,
00:11:24.120
and he does that great. But an interview needs to be shorter, right? So if you're just going to do
00:11:29.120
one interview, 45 minutes is a lot for an interview. A narcissist compensates with false bravado.
00:11:39.360
Oh, you're talking about somebody else, not me. But you can call me a narcissist too. That would be
00:11:44.420
fine. But just be specific. I'm a grandiose narcissist, not a vulnerable narcissist. Well,
00:11:53.180
as far as I know, I mean, couldn't be wrong about that. But as far as I know, I'm the kind of
00:11:59.100
narcissist that likes to get stuff done. And then if I get credit for that, that's great. I like it.
00:12:06.420
But I need to do things that are legitimately useful for other people, or I don't get anything.
00:12:13.860
So moving along. All right. I see your comment. But what was the answer to that? Should I do more
00:12:21.020
author interviews? One question, and then I'll move on. Should I do more author interviews?
00:12:27.900
Locals Platform says absolutely yes, yes, yes. Away for a moment. YouTube's a little mixed.
00:12:35.440
Yes. No, no, yes, no. Yes, yes, yes. No, no, no. Okay. In a question like this, only the yeses matter.
00:12:47.500
Here's a little tip for you about how to judge public opinion on entertainment stuff. This is a
00:12:55.000
really good tip. Learn this, and you'll have something to take with you. So I'm looking at the
00:13:01.080
YouTube messages, and it's a mixture of yeses and nos. So what should that tell me about whether I
00:13:06.560
should do this? It's an absolute yes, based on the feedback. Because it doesn't matter how many
00:13:13.060
people say no. This is the key learning. It doesn't matter how many people wouldn't watch it.
00:13:20.040
It has nothing to do with whether you should do it. The only thing that matters is how many would.
00:13:25.160
Because there's a lot of people. If five billion people hate you, but a billion people love you,
00:13:33.360
you're in a pretty good position if you've got a billion people on your side, even if five billion
00:13:37.380
hate you. So it has nothing to do with how many people don't want to watch you. Irrelevant.
00:13:44.200
All right. So also, I was on Viva and Barnes yesterday. You should Google that. That was a lot
00:13:50.960
of fun. If you missed me on Viva and Barnes, you're going to want to at least stay for how I addressed
00:13:57.800
the first troll who had a comment. Because I might have lost my composure.
00:14:07.380
So if you like to watch things where people lose their composure, you want to watch that one.
00:14:15.280
You might like it. Well, the big news today is that Trump is launching a social media network called
00:14:22.140
Truth Social Media. They're saying that so far, they're opening it up for beta users.
00:14:31.160
So Trump's network will be open for beta users. There is some suggestion that later conservatives
00:14:40.780
will also be able to use it. But for now, apparently, you have to be a beta to use it.
00:14:47.480
So I assume it's just all mostly Democrats. Am I reading too much into this? Oh, oh, oh, a beta.
00:14:55.620
I'm sorry. I misinterpreted this. It's the technology is the beta. It's the technology
00:15:02.380
that, okay. I thought it was just for betas. One of my weirdest predictions might be about
00:15:15.040
ready to come true. I'm not sure yet, so I don't have confidence in it. But here's one
00:15:19.700
of my weirdest predictions. Trump would lose money as president and make it back after he
00:15:27.920
was out of office and 10 times more. So when everybody said, I think running for president
00:15:33.820
is really bad for your company, and it was. It was terrible for the Trump company. I assume,
00:15:40.420
you know, it's a private company. But one assumes looking from the outside, it was just terrible
00:15:44.220
for business. But now he's launched this new media platform. I assume he has equity, right?
00:15:51.120
Has anybody seen any reporting on the degree of equity that Trump has versus his partners?
00:15:58.420
I don't think I've seen that. But one assumes he has, you know, a good chunk of equity.
00:16:03.420
And what is the best way to become a multi-billionaire in the United States?
00:16:12.080
It's this. Somehow, Trump managed to have equity in the type of company. Now, we don't know if this
00:16:19.580
one will work per se. But in the type of company that makes you a multi-billionaire right away.
00:16:26.200
He could be one year away from being one of the richest people in the country again.
00:16:31.540
And I always assumed that he would find a way to monetize, you know, his reputation and everything
00:16:40.340
else. And maybe this is it. You know, you can't really bet on any newish platform succeeding. I
00:16:46.480
think the odds are always against it. But he's bringing something that nobody ever brought before,
00:16:51.520
which is himself. And if people just sign up just so they can see what he's saying,
00:16:56.580
imagine if he runs for president, which seems likely, and the only place you can see the good
00:17:02.380
stuff is on his platform. You have to sign up, right? If the only place you can see his, like,
00:17:09.620
extra good stuff is on his own platform, every reporter has to sign up. Basically, every pundit,
00:17:16.200
everybody who watches, you all have to sign up. So he does have kind of a perfect setup,
00:17:22.260
which doesn't mean it's going to succeed. But the setup's kind of perfect.
00:17:30.140
I've already put it in my name. So there's a site where you can go to sign up to be invited or not.
00:17:37.500
So I put it in my name. I was looking at a Michael Schellenberger tweet talking about Greta
00:17:44.660
Tunberg, who was quoted in the past as saying, quote, I want you to panic. So Greta, and of course,
00:17:54.380
other people, literally wanted people to panic about the climate change stuff. And unfortunately,
00:18:01.440
I think they succeeded. It looks like they succeeded in getting people to panic. So it's
00:18:07.620
sort of a be careful what you wish for situation. Because I've said the best situation, if climate
00:18:18.120
change is really as dangerous as people say, or any version of it is, you need a little bit of panic,
00:18:25.180
don't you? Like, there's some productive amount of fear that gets you to do the right things,
00:18:32.280
so you're not in trouble in the future. But maybe we overshot the mark. We may have overpanicked.
00:18:38.140
It's hard to know what is the exact right amount of panic. Well, I think it's time to fire Pete
00:18:44.000
Buttigieg. And I'm reasonably pro-Buttigieg. And I'm also reasonably, not reasonably, I'm pro-paternal
00:18:53.920
leave, right? Wouldn't want to threaten, you know, the idea that people can have, you know, parental leave.
00:19:01.520
But at the same time, it is maybe the biggest problem in the country. And I don't think anybody's
00:19:08.700
in charge. Are they? Is anybody in charge? I saw on Twitter, somebody saying that the
00:19:19.680
Secretary of Transportation is not really the person who's the right person to fix the trucking slash
00:19:26.240
problem. Is that true? Can somebody tell me that just the first question is, is Buttigieg,
00:19:34.720
does he even have the portfolio and the power to be in charge of this problem? Because that's a good
00:19:41.760
question. Right. And if it's not him, who is it? And if you don't know who it is, and it's the biggest
00:19:49.460
problem, and it's not the president, the president doesn't seem involved in any way, who is working
00:19:54.780
on the biggest problem? I feel like Buttigieg has taken some responsibility for it, hasn't he?
00:20:03.940
Somebody says power, yes, but portfolio, no. I think that's the right answer. I think the answer
00:20:09.080
is that Buttigieg could take control of it. You know, he could sort of, I'm sure he could get Biden
00:20:16.240
to assign him the job of, you know, transportation czar of trucking and logistics or something.
00:20:25.540
So I think you're right that maybe his job description is not exactly on point. But in a crisis,
00:20:34.220
it seems like he would be the one that you'd pick. Now, let me ask you this. If Trump were president,
00:20:40.200
how would this supply chain problem look different? I feel like Trump would have solved this by now.
00:20:48.600
I also feel a hashtag coming on. It's a little too long. But something along the lines of,
00:20:56.180
Trump would have solved this by now? Because it, you know, look at the border problem.
00:21:03.200
Trump would have solved that by now. There are a few things that we see that just look like,
00:21:08.060
obviously, Trump would be the better choice, if only because he would be engaged, and Biden doesn't
00:21:14.580
seem to be. Look at what Trump might have done, right? We're just speculating here, because we
00:21:19.220
don't know. But here's something he might have done. Trump might have fired somebody, right? He
00:21:28.080
might have fired somebody. I don't know if that's Buttigieg or somebody else. But I think you have
00:21:31.860
to fire somebody. Like, I feel like it. Now, maybe there's nobody who's quite on point to be the
00:21:38.960
right one to fire. But if there's nobody to fire, then at least you need to pick a czar to be in
00:21:45.140
charge. So you have somebody to fire later, right? I think Trump would have written some executive
00:21:50.900
orders to override some any state regulations that were slowing things down. Now, I've heard things
00:21:57.760
such as there are not enough trucks because of environmental concerns of old trucks in
00:22:03.500
California. Do you think Trump couldn't solve that problem? One EO just says, well, temporarily,
00:22:11.600
you can use any truck you want. Just temporarily, because it's a crisis. You don't think Trump would
00:22:17.180
have done that? Just sign something that says temporarily, we're not going to worry about
00:22:21.440
California's regulations. Now, it could be that the trucks just don't exist. You know, maybe the
00:22:27.440
older trucks have been decommissioned and whatever else. So maybe there's just no play there. I don't
00:22:31.960
know. But why don't we know that? Because nobody's in charge. There's nobody in the government
00:22:37.560
who says, I'm in charge. Let me give you an update. Here's what we're doing. Here's what's
00:22:43.720
wrong. We've identified the problem. Here's the solution we're working on. It might take us a little
00:22:48.100
time, but we've identified the problem. Somebody's in charge. And here's the solution we think will
00:22:53.820
work. Where's all that? Right? Where's all of that? At the very least, I think a Trump administration
00:23:03.020
would be keeping you up to date on what the hell is happening, or even tell you what the problem was.
00:23:09.460
So I've been asking everybody for days now, describe what exactly is the problem? And luckily,
00:23:17.780
people who are well-informed, a number of people who work in the field and are involved with logistics.
00:23:24.540
Some of them, you know, have interviewed employees at the docks. And with all this information,
00:23:29.940
finally, finally, I got really clear, detailed answer to why things are slowing down.
00:23:37.600
Unfortunately, all of the really clear, detailed answers of why the supply chain isn't working
00:23:47.020
were different. That's right. Lots of experts weighed in. People really know. They're actually
00:23:55.220
working on it right now. The people in the field doing logistics, doing the shipping, you know,
00:24:01.700
unloading them. The people who are close to it, they really know. And so they told me what the
00:24:06.000
problem was. Lots of them. All different. What's that mean? What's it mean when everybody knows the
00:24:13.840
problem, but they all have a different answer? What's that mean? Well, the smallest amount it means
00:24:21.200
is that there's something going on. You know what it feels like? I don't think it is. So don't take
00:24:32.040
this as a conspiracy. Let me tell you what it feels like. Tell me, actually, see if anybody else says
00:24:37.700
the same thing. What does it feel like is the problem? Not really. You know, there's no evidence
00:24:44.000
of this. But what's it feel like? Boom. Tim Amaka on Locals got the right answer. War. It feels like
00:25:01.760
when the Twin Towers got hit with airplanes and you didn't quite know who was doing it or who was
00:25:09.080
behind it. It feels like war. Specifically, let's see if you can take it to the next level. So war is
00:25:17.800
the right answer. Take it to the next level. Give me another detail on that. Somebody says China.
00:25:26.960
Give me another detail. All right. I'm not alleging this. All right. There's no allegation. I'm just
00:25:33.100
saying how it feels. There's one thing I'm looking for here. I haven't seen it yet. There we go.
00:25:44.200
Somebody got it. I knew you'd get it. David. I think David said it first on Locals. It looks like a cyber
00:25:53.520
attack. I'll even take it to another level. I'm accepting cyber as, you know, close enough. Looks
00:26:02.860
like an AI attack. Yeah, what did that just do to your brain? Right? First time you heard that. I don't
00:26:14.280
think anybody else has mentioned it. This feels like an AI attack. So it feels like. Now, I would
00:26:24.180
not allege that because I think you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to say that. But if we
00:26:31.000
ever get an AI attack, what's it going to look like? It's going to look like a whole bunch of things
00:26:36.780
seem to stop working right at about the same time. It's going to look like we can't quite identify
00:26:42.920
the source of the problem, but our systems aren't working. The things that used to be smooth just
00:26:49.700
stop being smooth, and we don't know why. Now, again, let me be very clear. I'm not alleging
00:26:55.460
that this is some kind of an AI attack. I'm only alleging that it would feel and look exactly like
00:27:03.480
this. I don't think you'd know you'd be attacked. When you think of an AI attack, you think they're
00:27:08.820
going to turn the lights off. Or you think they're going to, you know, break the hydroelectric
00:27:14.820
dam or something. You know, you think of it like a terrorist attack. But I think AI would attack
00:27:20.360
without telling you they're attacking. What's the point of having artificial intelligence if it's
00:27:25.960
dumb? Right? You don't want dumb AI. That's no good. A smart AI wouldn't tell you it's attacking.
00:27:32.340
Would it? It'd be a sneak attack. So an AI attack that, you know, was worth anything would be a sneak
00:27:39.420
attack because you don't want some kind of a response. What did I do to your brains today?
00:27:49.700
Because the first time you realize that, and again, I'm not saying this is an AI attack. The first time
00:27:55.380
we realized that this is what it would look like and how it would feel is pretty disconcerting, isn't
00:28:02.960
it? Pretty disconcerting. Now, let me add a little meat to that. The way an AI attack would work would
00:28:11.360
be just to hit enough systems that are related to the same process, in this case, the supply chain,
00:28:17.100
to have enough misinformation and enough persuasion just inserted at the right points. There's several
00:28:24.980
things that seem to be breaking at the same time, and you wouldn't know why. Everything's just a
00:28:30.200
little bit broken. You know, nothing exploded. Just everything's a little bit broken, and then the
00:28:36.180
supply chain just goes crazy. All right. Newsweek had a story today in which they referred to the
00:28:45.580
fine people hoax, but linked to an article that seemed to treat it like it was true. Now, I was informed
00:28:54.320
that Newsweek did, in fact, put the clarifying statement in there that Trump said he wasn't
00:28:59.880
talking about the neo-Nazis, but in its entirety and with the link, they're still spreading the fine
00:29:08.240
people hoax in 2021. The most debunked hoax of all time still being at least couched in a way that
00:29:16.740
they're making it look like maybe it was true, based on the linked article. And so I said to
00:29:25.000
myself, how could you not know that in 2021? So I googled it. Google, just use Google, and Google
00:29:32.700
fine people hoax, and put a plus in front of hoax so you make sure that an article comes up that says
00:29:40.060
hoax. Do you know what will come up? Articles that say it's true and don't have the word hoax in
00:29:48.220
them. Now, I only did this quickly, so I didn't confirm this, but I think that's true. I think the
00:29:53.580
top searches for the thing that requires the word hoax to be in it don't have the word hoax in it.
00:29:59.920
You have to go down pretty far to get something from Politico or from me. Right? Try yourself,
00:30:07.660
can somebody confirm that? So this is an unconfirmed claim. I'm claiming because I didn't open all the
00:30:13.540
articles, but I doubt those articles had the word hoax in it. Kind of doubt it. It feels like they're
00:30:20.100
artificially pinned to the top. Not sure, but it looked like it. All right. So, do you know Robert,
00:30:34.140
everybody know Robert Reich, economist and Democrat? And he's a super partisan, you know,
00:30:42.060
tweeter and pretty active on social media. Here's my problem with him. I think it's because he's an
00:30:49.600
economist that I have more problem with his bias than I do with other people's. You know, if you
00:30:55.860
see a politician or somebody who's working for a politician or clearly an activist, and they say
00:31:00.840
things that are just amazingly biased and one-sided and basically just looks like a lie, you say to
00:31:07.700
yourself, well, they're a politician or they're working for a politician. And you sort of discount
00:31:12.440
it as being just ridiculous. But when a famous, you know, at least notable economist says something,
00:31:21.100
you try to think, well, you know, at least maybe he's right about that. But he is so insanely biased
00:31:29.820
that it just disgusts me when I see his tweets. Because I hate to see somebody who's an economist
00:31:36.220
like throw his entire profession under a bus. If you're an economist and you can't treat things
00:31:43.040
objectively, you need to give your degree back. Right? You should just give it back. Because you
00:31:49.560
didn't earn an economics degree if you can't even attempt to be a little unbiased.
00:31:57.600
All right. So he tweeted, he said, there's something talking about the bill to strengthen the voting
00:32:03.680
rights that got rejected. So Congress rejected it. But there were enough people to have gotten a
00:32:10.040
majority, but not enough to beat a filibuster. I think most of you are well educated on the process.
00:32:17.540
But if anybody isn't, most bills you could get passed with a simple majority, you know, 51% or
00:32:24.860
whatever. But for some things, you need more than that, you know, a super majority if you're trying
00:32:30.740
to beat a filibuster. And the filibuster is just one party, usually, I think always the minority
00:32:35.980
party, just trying to use the procedural right to talk forever, to delay things until, you know,
00:32:44.060
you can't get anything passed. And Reich is saying, he says, he tweets, there's something terribly wrong
00:32:50.100
with the system that allows 41 Senate Republicans representing only 21% of the country to block voting
00:32:57.980
rights legislation supported by nearly 70% of Americans. The filibuster must go.
00:33:06.220
God, he's so slimy. I so slimy. All right, here's the problem with this.
00:33:15.720
How many of Americans actually understand what's in the voting rights bill? What do you think?
00:33:22.840
He says 70% are in favor of this bill. How many of you think know what's in the bill?
00:33:29.980
Zero. Zero. Because Democrats always make complicated bills that you can't understand.
00:33:36.640
The infrastructure bill, 3.5 trillion. How many Americans knew what was in that? Zero.
00:33:43.200
How many people know what's in the voting rights bill? None. None. Nobody. So, Robert Reich,
00:33:54.620
you slimy piece of shit, you know, suggesting that somehow 70% of Americans wanting this, or wanting
00:34:04.660
voting rights in general, is somehow in favor of this specific bill. That's just not the case,
00:34:10.640
and you know it. So, when I see somebody lie, I mean, this is just the, well, lie is maybe the wrong
00:34:17.320
word here. Let's say, persuade in such a biased way, it just discredits economists, and I hate that.
00:34:27.600
You know, the economists are certainly not right all the time, but they don't need this. All right,
00:34:33.760
so, it appears that Democrats have a two-pronged strategy, and that's pretty interesting. The first
00:34:44.760
prong is to get rid of the filibuster. Now, you're hearing a lot of talk about that, right? So, Democrats
00:34:49.900
are the party in power, but they can't get things done because of this darn filibuster that
00:34:55.460
Republicans keep using. So, step one is a lot of Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster.
00:35:00.180
Step one of their clever plan. Step two of their plan is to botch one thing after another until the
00:35:08.840
party in power is the Republicans. So, step one, give whoever the party in power is all the power
00:35:15.880
by getting rid of the filibuster. Step two, make sure that the other party's in power and has all
00:35:22.040
that power with no filibuster. Isn't that what's happening? Am I wrong? I'm not wrong,
00:35:30.080
right? That they explicitly have those two goals. Well, the first one is explicit, get rid of the
00:35:35.920
filibuster. But it does look like every single force is suggesting that the Republicans will retake
00:35:43.660
power, right? I mean, at least Congress in 2022. So, shouldn't getting rid of the filibuster be
00:35:52.760
really close to the last thing they would want right now? I don't know. How can you support a party
00:35:58.300
that has this as their plan to give all the power to the other side? I'm not making this up.
00:36:06.600
You're seeing the same thing I see, right? There's no debate on these two facts. Democrats want to get
00:36:14.960
rid of the filibuster, many of them, the ones we see talking in public. At the same time, it's pretty
00:36:21.340
clear that the performance we're getting at the Democrats will put Republicans in power.
00:36:25.540
They know that too, don't they? Don't they know that? Maybe they don't. All right.
00:36:36.120
So, here's CNN helping the public understand what's in the bill, finally. You know, it's a complicated
00:36:43.620
bill with a lot of stuff in it, and I'd like to understand it better. And so, for the benefit of my
00:36:48.500
viewers here, I'm going to read CNN's description so that all of you will finally know what's in this
00:36:54.620
complicated bill. Are you ready? This should answer all of your questions. As written, the current
00:37:00.580
compromise version, this is one Manchin put together, of the bill would establish national
00:37:05.500
rules for running elections. Sounds good. Limit partisanship in the drawing of congressional
00:37:12.440
districts. Looks good. Looks good. And force the disclosure of many anonymous donors who spend big
00:37:23.060
to influence elections. I like that. Pretty good. Pretty good. Other provisions were aimed at
00:37:29.260
alleviating concerns from local election officials who worried that the original bill would have been
00:37:35.680
too difficult to implement. Okay, so they simplified it. Good. And some new additions were aimed at
00:37:40.980
insulating nonpartisan... I don't know what that means. Blah, blah, blah. It also included a number of
00:37:47.860
changes sought by Manchin, blah, blah, blah, including a provision that would limit but not
00:37:52.760
prohibit state voter ID requirements. Do you think you know enough about the bill now to have an opinion?
00:38:02.620
No. No. Not even close. Basically, CNN is just sort of like brushing the top of it.
00:38:09.360
They might as well have named the parts of the bill Awesome Things That Everybody Loves.
00:38:18.480
How would you like a bill? We're going to fill it with Awesome Things That Everyone Loves.
00:38:24.880
Oh, don't ask the details. No, don't ask about the details. Don't ask how it will be implemented,
00:38:30.580
what the cost of it is, what the side effects will be, and how it will distort anything. Don't ask that.
00:38:35.980
It's just called the Awesome Bill That Everybody Loves with things in it that you want.
00:38:43.040
That's all you need to know. Don't give us all those details about what's good or bad about it or
00:38:48.520
all that. It's just the Awesome Bill That Everybody Loves. And then Democrats can get everything they want.
00:38:56.900
So, there is a reason that our system is a republic. Do you remember what it was? Anybody? Anybody?
00:39:05.140
Why is our system a republic and not a pure democracy?
00:39:18.060
Because the public can't understand this stuff.
00:39:21.240
So, if our elected officials go in there, they have a better chance of understanding it.
00:39:31.940
Did you see the video of Jeremy Raskin, a Democrat, interrogating Republican Matt Gaetz about the January 6th stuff?
00:39:42.680
It's a pretty good clip. So, if you get a chance, I think I tweeted it today.
00:39:46.840
Okay. So, Raskin is really going hard at Matt Gaetz, challenging him to, does he believe that Trump won the election or not?
00:39:57.340
Now, to his credit, Matt Gaetz is, I don't know if you know this, but he was, I think he was like a state champion on his high school debate team.
00:40:08.280
I may have the detail of that wrong, but something like that.
00:40:11.060
Like, Matt Gaetz is super good at debating things and holding his own in exactly this kind of situation.
00:40:26.140
He did better than most, probably a top 5% answer.
00:40:32.240
And certainly showed that he has the chops to be in that situation.
00:40:39.380
But I feel like here's how I would have answered it.
00:40:43.920
So, Raskin, I'm going to paraphrase, you know, the thing.
00:40:47.240
But essentially, Raskin was saying, you know, all these courts rejected the evidence.
00:40:53.040
So, how can you say that maybe the election wasn't fair when so many courts rejected all the evidence?
00:40:58.840
Now, what Matt Gaetz tried to do was suggest that courts are not the right tool for evaluating the claims
00:41:06.700
because most of them were rejected on grounds of, you know, whether it was an appropriate, what's the right name?
00:41:15.340
Appropriate, whether the courts were the right vehicle for the complaint.
00:41:23.380
So, the complaints did not meet the legal standard for standing, meaning that it wasn't the right people taking the right complaint to the right court.
00:41:38.260
It wasn't the right people taking the right kind of complaint to the right court.
00:41:42.600
So, we never had a situation where the right people took the right complaint to the right court, although sometimes I think they did.
00:41:49.000
But in general, a lot of things were rejected by standing.
00:41:58.580
So, Matt Gaetz's answers were accurate and right on point.
00:42:07.160
So, being accurate and being right on point and being confident in all the things he did right, because he did a lot right,
00:42:22.220
Jamie Raskin says, you know, Scott Adams, that no court, and he lists the number of courts and the number of claims,
00:42:37.080
I'd like to understand your question better, Mr. Raskin.
00:42:40.840
There seems to be an embedded assumption in your question, and I just need a clarification.
00:42:47.520
Are you suggesting that the courts would be the right place to evaluate the claims?
00:42:57.040
And Raskin would say something like, um, um, you know, all these courts rejected it.
00:43:04.260
He'd say, yeah, I know, I heard that part, and I agree with everything you're saying.
00:43:10.440
Is your assumption that the courts were the right vehicle to evaluate claims?
00:43:23.600
You're aware that the courts said they're not the right vehicle for this, right?
00:43:27.180
So I'm a little confused why you're asking the question.
00:43:42.020
But you have to do it by asking him for clarification.
00:43:57.180
Raskin painted a box and then invited, you know, linguistically, he painted a box
00:44:04.680
and then invited Matt Gaetz to get into his box, which was a kill box.
00:44:10.060
And Matt Gaetz walked right into the kill box, well-armed, well-armed,
00:44:14.860
because Matt Gaetz is really, really good at this stuff.
00:44:31.740
Because there's an assumption embedded in your question that I need to understand,
00:44:36.780
because my assumption wouldn't make your question make sense.
00:44:43.680
why the courts didn't think they were the right vehicle for this, but you still do.
00:44:49.100
Is there something that you know that all those judges don't know?
00:44:57.080
There were, what, 60-some judges who all think that they were not appropriate vehicles for this question.
00:45:13.020
How many of you think my answer would be better?
00:45:30.140
Except for the part where I would never run for president because, you know,
00:45:34.740
I don't want them looking into my life and tearing me apart and it would be a suicide mission.
00:45:42.480
Because there is a skill set for this sort of stuff that I possess.
00:45:48.580
Matt Gaetz has that skill set, like, really, really good.
00:45:54.060
But, you know, he got taken down by the media so far.
00:46:04.720
You know, I would put Matt Gaetz as an 8 out of 10 on communication, which is higher than almost everybody.
00:46:24.480
It's not because of some genetic quality I possess.
00:46:26.820
I'm not saying I'm good at this because I'm somehow born with talent.
00:46:39.620
Anybody who had studied it as much as me could do what I do.
00:46:50.400
By the way, if you don't know, I use him for all my examples.
00:46:53.780
For some reason, he fits every example-like story.
00:46:58.420
But there's something about the nature of him that he fits lots of stories.
00:47:01.980
If Mike Cernovich wanted to be president, again, you'd have to subtract out whatever, you know, things the press would talk about in his past.
00:47:11.540
So neither he nor I are really legitimate possibilities for the president.
00:47:16.000
But does he have the skill set to do what I just told you Matt Gaetz should have done?
00:47:26.160
How much would you like to have seen Mike Cernovich answer Jeremy Raskin's question in public?
00:47:38.380
Yeah, you can talk about all the reasons that he or I are unqualified for other reasons.
00:47:55.840
I feel like there could have been a warp speed version for trucking.
00:48:01.780
I do think that the number one reason I get for the supply chain problems is that there aren't enough trucks and truckers.
00:48:12.760
You don't think Trump would have already spun up a warp speed for trucking?
00:48:20.900
How hard could it be to do warp speed and say, well, we've got a problem here, but in three weeks you're going to have a shit ton of trucks and truckers?
00:48:31.780
There are definitely enough unemployed people who want jobs.
00:48:35.360
You could definitely temporarily give them, you know, emergency pay to make it worthwhile.
00:48:40.840
You could definitely get people who would be willing to be trained because, you know, maybe the training is free.
00:48:55.760
Trucker school costs money that people don't have.
00:49:01.780
In other words, there are a lot of people who would want to be truckers, but they can't afford it because the trucking school costs money.
00:49:10.320
How does Scott know that trucking school costs money and the people who might want to be truckers don't have that money?
00:49:17.500
The reason I know that is I once paid for somebody to go to trucking school.
00:49:22.900
Because there was no way in the world that he ever could have gotten the money together.
00:49:35.540
But offered to pay for somebody to go to driving school because it wasn't a problem he could solve.
00:49:40.960
Couldn't figure out how to make money to make money.
00:49:43.180
So I thought, well, I could get you kick-started.
00:49:53.000
While we're here, can somebody do a little research and put it in the comments?
00:50:13.560
How many people who are unemployed or looking for a new job could spend 5K to get a job that might be temporary
00:50:36.860
Now, seriously, let me back up and ask the question.
00:50:41.360
You don't think Trump would have solved this by now?
00:50:45.640
I mean, I'm not sure I quite understand the problem, which is also part of the problem.
00:50:49.960
But if any part of it is that we don't have enough trained truckers,
00:50:58.820
Just pay them to go to school, and that would probably do it.
00:51:04.620
Now, there is a secondary question of enough trucks.
00:51:11.000
California has some kind of environmental rule that sort of mothballed a bunch of trucks.
00:51:17.680
Could any of those trucks be put back in production temporarily?
00:51:23.720
You know, maybe they have to steal parts from one truck to build a good truck,
00:51:28.760
But I feel like these are all things you could do with an executive order and a big wallet.
00:51:37.320
So, you know, there's no way to know that Trump would have done a better job on this, right?
00:51:43.180
He would have probably fired somebody's ass by now.
00:51:50.680
Because we kind of need to see somebody get fired.
00:51:54.000
Like, it's not like I have some kind of bloodlust,
00:51:56.920
and I don't even have a bad feeling about, you know, Pete Buttigieg.
00:52:05.060
If he was the one, really, who should have been doing any of this,
00:52:09.400
or recommending it, or writing the EO for Biden to sign, you know?
00:52:18.020
Do you know how the Trump executive orders got written?
00:52:26.720
But generally, people who understood things and needed something and said,
00:52:43.880
Who is giving Biden executive orders, first drafts,
00:52:49.860
if we put this in good order, you know, get it lawyered up?
00:53:06.320
That looks to be what I wanted to talk about today.
00:53:15.660
I don't know if there's any issue with that, is there?
00:53:20.840
You know, I mean, you can think of all the usual reasons
00:53:24.120
why they might not want to get into the business.
00:53:26.280
Fake news, truckers can be trained in two weeks.
00:53:35.240
Somebody said that truckers can be trained in two weeks is fake news.
00:53:45.180
If anybody has been trained or gone to trucker school,
00:53:49.560
what would be the amount of time to train a trucker?
00:54:09.840
Do you actually know what you're talking about?
00:54:12.560
I think most people are saying four weeks, and that feels right.
00:54:16.140
I think it's a four-week course that in an emergency you could do in two.
00:54:20.840
I think there are probably a lot of people who, you know,
00:54:23.420
maybe have some experience, and it doesn't take them the full four weeks.
00:54:41.260
Your housemate trained with UPS a couple of weeks ago.
00:54:50.260
I guess they're unloading a lot of the products from the shipping containers
00:54:53.440
and putting them in temporary warehouses until they can get enough trucks.
00:54:57.980
Is there a play where we could discount those goods
00:55:08.080
I mean, it's probably impractical, but I just wonder.
00:55:13.240
Let's say you heard that there were a whole bunch of shipping containers
00:55:17.820
with, I don't know, televisions, a bunch of new 4K TVs,
00:55:23.580
and there's a whole shipping container, and they just can't get it on a truck.
00:55:27.940
And let's say that the company who purchased them for whatever retail purpose
00:55:40.320
like we'll just stand there with a credit card reader,
00:55:43.240
you just take one out, take one out of the container,
00:55:47.880
you just put it on your truck and take it home.
00:55:52.340
30% discount if you put it on your truck and take it home.
00:56:00.800
It would be a total bottleneck traffic nightmare.
00:56:10.640
Is there no way to get those containers to some place
00:56:17.900
Such as putting a container on one smaller ship?
00:56:25.400
I'm sure people have thought of all these things
00:56:38.800
The main problem is that the Biden administration
00:56:42.260
has no lead face telling us what's happening every day.
00:56:48.060
And we need somebody to tell us what's happening every day now
00:57:14.280
because no independent contractors in California.
00:57:18.280
There's something about you have to be an employee
00:57:24.000
because they don't want independent contractors
00:57:26.520
to be, I don't know, cheating on their taxes or whatever.
00:57:36.620
Every one of these problems don't apply in an emergency.
00:57:40.220
You know, I was saying that during the pandemic
00:58:17.680
You'd probably have to suspend a whole bunch of stuff,