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


Length

58 minutes

Words per minute

149.96515

Word count

8,822

Sentence count

751

Harmful content

Misogyny

3

sentences flagged

Hate speech

4

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

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

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
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,
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.
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 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
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 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.
00:51:43.180 He would have probably fired somebody's ass by now.
00:51:46.080 And the country would feel good about that.
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.