Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1537 Scott Adams： Trump Gets His Own Social Network and Everything is Broken. That Means Good Content Today

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.

00:01:35.620 Go.

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, 0.73

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 0.91

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 0.89

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. 0.99

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? 0.51

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 0.96

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 0.59

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 0.99

00:34:04.660 voting rights in general, is somehow in favor of this specific bill. That's just not the case, 1.00

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 0.99

00:34:55.460 Republicans keep using. So, step one is a lot of Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster. 0.98

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 0.76

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?

00:39:12.600 This. This. This is why.

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.

00:39:26.820 That doesn't work so well either.

00:39:28.000 But, yeah, there's a reason we're a republic.

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.

00:40:18.180 However, I think he blew his chance on this.

00:40:26.140 He did better than most, probably a top 5% answer.

00:40:30.620 Better than most.

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.

00:40:43.060 Okay.

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.

00:41:20.560 What's the word?

00:41:22.040 Standing.

00:41:22.660 Yes, standing.

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.

00:41:36.640 Is that close enough?

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.

00:41:53.520 So, Matt Gaetz tries to give that answer.

00:41:55.700 How was that answer?

00:41:57.300 True.

00:41:58.580 So, Matt Gaetz's answers were accurate and right on point.

00:42:03.540 Also, a complete failure, persuasion-wise.

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,

00:42:13.520 not even close to being good enough.

00:42:16.020 Here's what good enough would look like.

00:42:18.920 You ready?

00:42:20.020 Put me in Matt Gaetz's chair.

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,

00:42:29.040 and they've all been turned down.

00:42:30.880 He said, what do you think about that, Scott?

00:42:32.700 No court.

00:42:33.560 No court.

00:42:34.600 Here's the right answer.

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.

00:42:46.020 Can I get a clarification on the question?

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.

00:43:01.580 They all rejected it.

00:43:02.520 He'd probably just repeat himself.

00:43:04.260 He'd say, yeah, I know, I heard that part, and I agree with everything you're saying.

00:43:07.700 But I'm looking for your assumption.

00:43:10.440 Is your assumption that the courts were the right vehicle to evaluate claims?

00:43:14.800 Because the courts said they weren't.

00:43:17.520 You know all the ones you're mentioning?

00:43:19.740 Are you aware of that, Mr. Raskin?

00:43:22.160 I just need a clarification.

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.

00:43:30.660 Were you not aware of that?

00:43:31.820 Right?

00:43:35.420 Right?

00:43:38.320 You could basically end Raskin right there.

00:43:42.020 But you have to do it by asking him for clarification.

00:43:45.580 Because you need to put him on his heels.

00:43:48.580 Here's what Matt Gaetz got wrong.

00:43:51.780 He entered Raskin's frame.

00:43:55.820 He entered his frame.

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.

00:44:17.260 But he walked into the kill box.

00:44:19.540 Don't walk into the kill box.

00:44:21.820 Never.

00:44:22.900 Never.

00:44:23.440 Don't enter his frame.

00:44:24.820 You've got to break his frame.

00:44:25.900 He offered a frame.

00:44:28.680 You say, I need a clarification on that.

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.

00:44:41.060 But maybe you can explain it to the public,

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?

00:44:54.340 Jamie Raskin?

00:44:54.920 I mean, or Jeremy.

00:44:57.080 There were, what, 60-some judges who all think that they were not appropriate vehicles for this question.

00:45:05.180 But you still think they were?

00:45:08.520 Hmm.

00:45:09.100 You better explain that.

00:45:11.420 See where I'm going?

00:45:12.640 Okay.

00:45:13.020 How many of you think my answer would be better?

00:45:16.600 You know, you can be brutal.

00:45:17.740 You can be brutal if you think it isn't.

00:45:21.840 It's not even close, right?

00:45:24.640 Now, let me ask you another question.

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.

00:45:39.620 I could be president.

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.

00:45:57.760 I don't know if he'll recover.

00:45:58.840 But he doesn't have, he doesn't have my level.

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.

00:46:11.800 But I am a 10.

00:46:13.900 I am a 10.

00:46:14.860 There are 10s.

00:46:16.120 I think Trump's a 10.

00:46:18.440 Trump's a 10.

00:46:20.500 Absolutely.

00:46:22.260 And let me be clear.

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.

00:46:33.460 No, it's a skill.

00:46:35.180 It's literally just a skill you can study.

00:46:37.840 I've studied it.

00:46:39.620 Anybody who had studied it as much as me could do what I do.

00:46:43.600 Let me give you an example.

00:46:46.560 Same problem.

00:46:48.040 You know, let's take Mike Cernovich.

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.

00:46:57.000 I don't know why.

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?

00:47:24.180 Yeah, he does.

00:47:26.160 How much would you like to have seen Mike Cernovich answer Jeremy Raskin's question in public?

00:47:32.600 Well, it would have been different.

00:47:36.820 It would have been different.

00:47:38.380 Yeah, you can talk about all the reasons that he or I are unqualified for other reasons.

00:47:45.120 But communication-wise, he's a 10.

00:47:48.740 All right.

00:47:50.120 Supply chain.

00:47:50.860 Yeah, Trump would have fixed this by now.

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?

00:48:18.820 And how hard could it be?

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.

00:48:46.500 Because right now I think you have to...

00:48:47.820 Oh, correct me if I'm wrong.

00:48:49.080 I need a fact check on this.

00:48:51.460 Everybody?

00:48:52.360 I need a fact check on this.

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.

00:49:08.220 How do I know that?

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.

00:49:21.980 Do you know why I did?

00:49:22.900 Because there was no way in the world that he ever could have gotten the money together.

00:49:28.460 That's right.

00:49:29.760 So I've actually paid.

00:49:32.820 I don't know if he went.

00:49:34.160 I remember I offered.

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.

00:49:46.800 And I don't remember how much.

00:49:49.520 In the few thousands?

00:49:51.180 Does somebody have a number for that?

00:49:53.000 While we're here, can somebody do a little research and put it in the comments?

00:49:58.240 What does it cost to go to trucking school?

00:50:02.080 I see 3K.

00:50:03.340 I see 15.

00:50:04.160 It wasn't 15.

00:50:05.580 And I see 5K.

00:50:06.900 My memory was 5K.

00:50:09.160 I'm seeing 5K more than anything else.

00:50:11.600 How many truckers can spend...

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

00:50:20.560 and doesn't sound too good in the first place?

00:50:24.660 How hard a problem is that to solve?

00:50:28.220 Not hard.

00:50:29.880 It's one executive order.

00:50:32.220 And it's one emergency funding.

00:50:35.080 You know, in the short term...

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,

00:50:55.560 I'm pretty sure that would be solved by now.

00:50:58.820 Just pay them to go to school, and that would probably do it.

00:51:03.500 Just pay for the classes.

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. 0.83

00:51:17.680 Could any of those trucks be put back in production temporarily?

00:51:22.480 Probably.

00:51:23.720 You know, maybe they have to steal parts from one truck to build a good truck,

00:51:27.200 you know, one good truck out of three.

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?

00:51:41.360 But here's the things we do know. 0.99

00:51:43.180 He would have probably fired somebody's ass by now. 0.99

00:51:46.080 And the country would feel good about that. 0.99

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.

00:51:59.640 I think he has a lot of talents.

00:52:01.080 He has a lot to offer, I think.

00:52:03.320 But I think he probably needs to get fired.

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?

00:52:13.960 Nobody's even writing an EO for him to sign.

00:52:18.020 Do you know how the Trump executive orders got written?

00:52:25.300 Different ways, right?

00:52:26.720 But generally, people who understood things and needed something and said,

00:52:30.580 all right, we'll write you a first jaft.

00:52:32.820 Obviously, you know, lawyers look at it.

00:52:35.620 But we'll just write you the first jaft.

00:52:37.580 It needs to look like this.

00:52:39.240 Lawyers look at it.

00:52:40.200 President signs it.

00:52:41.480 Who's doing that for Biden?

00:52:43.880 Who is giving Biden executive orders, first drafts,

00:52:47.720 that says, look, you know, this could be good

00:52:49.860 if we put this in good order, you know, get it lawyered up?

00:52:54.200 All right.

00:52:55.080 I think we're going to see a hashtag that says

00:52:57.340 Trump would have fixed this by now.

00:53:00.560 That's what I think.

00:53:02.820 All right.

00:53:06.320 That looks to be what I wanted to talk about today.

00:53:12.040 Why can't more women be truckers? 1.00

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.

00:53:32.080 I think that's true.

00:53:35.240 Somebody said that truckers can be trained in two weeks is fake news.

00:53:38.460 Coming from me.

00:53:40.720 What is the right amount of time?

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?

00:53:52.860 I say two weeks.

00:53:55.800 In an emergency, two weeks.

00:53:58.360 In an emergency, two weeks.

00:54:01.560 Yeah.

00:54:02.600 I'm saying three to four weeks is normal.

00:54:05.380 So how many people would disagree with me?

00:54:07.820 Six months?

00:54:08.660 Three months?

00:54:09.840 Do you actually know what you're talking about?

00:54:11.320 Or just...

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.

00:54:28.940 Convoy.

00:54:30.820 Convoy.

00:54:32.040 Ooh.

00:54:32.680 I also wondered...

00:54:35.060 Let me just throw something out there.

00:54:41.260 Your housemate trained with UPS a couple of weeks ago.

00:54:43.840 Yeah, slightly different problem.

00:54:46.140 Let me ask you this.

00:54:47.480 We've got all these products at the ports.

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

00:55:02.420 and just sell them at the port?

00:55:06.920 I don't know.

00:55:08.080 I mean, it's probably impractical, but I just wonder.

00:55:11.960 Let's just work through this.

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

00:55:32.300 says, look, can you let us sell it?

00:55:34.740 We'll sell it right out of the container.

00:55:37.600 If you let us sell it out of the container,

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,

00:55:45.960 I'll just put your credit card in here,

00:55:47.880 you just put it on your truck and take it home.

00:55:50.340 Give you a 30% discount.

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.

00:56:06.060 Probably.

00:56:07.540 Probably.

00:56:08.600 All right, let me open it up again.

00:56:10.640 Is there no way to get those containers to some place

00:56:15.780 where it wouldn't be a bottleneck?

00:56:17.900 Such as putting a container on one smaller ship?

00:56:21.340 No, you probably can't do that.

00:56:23.280 I don't know.

00:56:23.700 I'm just brainstorming.

00:56:25.400 I'm sure people have thought of all these things

00:56:27.460 and rejected them for one reason or another,

00:56:29.580 but I think we've got to get creative,

00:56:32.020 and I'm not sure anything's happening.

00:56:34.600 So here's my main problem.

00:56:37.260 Everything else is just speculation.

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

00:56:50.920 and be right about it.

00:56:57.680 Use FedEx and UPS offices.

00:57:00.380 Well, I don't know how that would work.

00:57:03.840 The highways are the bottleneck.

00:57:05.600 No, I don't think they are.

00:57:06.660 Well, maybe just around the ports.

00:57:08.420 That could be true.

00:57:12.760 No trucks in California

00:57:14.280 because no independent contractors in California.

00:57:17.220 Yeah, I've heard that issue.

00:57:18.280 There's something about you have to be an employee

00:57:21.340 to drive a truck in California

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.

00:57:28.660 Again, how easy would that be to fix

00:57:32.560 with an executive order, right?

00:57:35.320 It's an emergency.

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

00:57:42.060 when, you know, Trump was doing EOs.

00:57:44.660 A lot of people would say,

00:57:45.680 well, you can't do that.

00:57:46.500 You can't do this.

00:57:47.240 You can't do that.

00:57:48.240 And I kept saying the same thing.

00:57:50.280 In a crisis, you can do anything.

00:57:53.040 There are no rules in a crisis

00:57:54.500 except that it's a, you know,

00:57:56.880 whatever you're doing makes sense.

00:57:58.640 The only rule that makes sense in a crisis

00:58:00.820 is does this look like it'll work?

00:58:03.980 That's it.

00:58:05.000 Everything else doesn't matter.

00:58:06.180 You can get rid of that stuff.

00:58:09.360 Yeah, you have to be on a war footing.

00:58:11.460 Exactly.

00:58:11.800 Yeah, you'd have to suspend OSHA.

00:58:17.680 You'd probably have to suspend a whole bunch of stuff,

00:58:19.700 but temporarily?

00:58:21.320 It's all doable temporarily, it looks like.

00:58:25.180 All right.

00:58:31.660 Why is everybody talking to user SLACs?

00:58:35.140 Apparently there's a troll over here

00:58:36.580 that people are taking seriously on YouTube.

00:58:39.440 All right, that's all I've got for now,

00:58:42.840 and I will talk to you tomorrow.

00:58:45.120 I know you can't wait.

00:58:46.320 You're already looking forward to it.

00:58:47.740 Come on, you know you are.

00:58:49.180 See you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 21, 2021

Episode 1537 Scott Adams： Trump Gets His Own Social Network and Everything is Broken. That Means Good Content Today

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript