Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1562 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About All the Fake News and Celebrity Idiots

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody. What an amazing day. Amazing. For a Monday, even. Yeah, I don't want

00:00:09.400 to go all Garfield the cat on you, but some people think Mondays are terrible. No, no,

00:00:15.540 not here. Here, the Mondays are great every time. And if you'd like to take it up another notch,

00:00:23.380 yeah, you do. Yeah, you do. All you need is what? A cup or mug or a glass. I'll take your chalice

00:00:30.280 or sign a canteen jug or flask of a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like

00:00:36.040 coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. Dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes

00:00:42.740 everything better. Yeah, it's called a simultaneous sip. And watch it make your antibodies come alive.

00:00:50.260 Go.

00:00:53.380 Mmm. Yeah. Did you feel that? I think you did. Well, we got all kinds of fun news today.

00:01:02.660 The good kind. Well, it depends on your point of view, whether it's good or just interesting.

00:01:09.500 This is not good, but it's interesting. According to the BBC, there were heavy rains and flooding

00:01:16.860 in southern Egypt. No problem. A little bit of flooding, a little heavy rains. But when you

00:01:22.800 get heavy rains in this part of southern Egypt, apparently, it drives all the scorpions out

00:01:28.620 of their hiding holes. And so 500 people were hospitalized with scorpion bites, and a few

00:01:36.400 people died. Now, when I heard that southern Egypt is having problems with scorpion swarms,

00:01:44.560 I said to myself, well, how do I guess some of those? Because I live in California, and if there's a

00:01:51.520 disaster that can happen, we want it. So we got our energy shortage. We got our water shortage. We've got

00:01:57.600 our massive forest fires. We've got the homeless, the people dying on the streets. We've got the COVID.

00:02:03.100 COVID. And a few other things. We've got your earthquakes. But what we don't have is scorpion

00:02:12.020 swarms. And I feel like we need to catch up a little bit. So playing catch up to southern

00:02:18.000 Egypt, we got to get us some hidden scorpions to come out during the rain. All we have are

00:02:23.760 mudslides, and I don't think that's good enough. Well, today, the Rittenhouse jury will be deciding

00:02:31.100 on the case. Apparently, the charges have been reduced, or at least a request has been made to

00:02:40.720 consider additional charges of a lesser kind. Now, here's a story that Jonathan Turley was

00:02:48.020 behind. I saw this on Fox News Channel. Apparently, did you know that the judge can't figure out what

00:02:56.500 the gun ownership law is in Wisconsin? That's right. The judge, who is trained for years to read

00:03:06.700 legal documents and to know what they mean, said directly that he can't understand what the law

00:03:13.240 even says on gun ownership, because it's written so poorly, you're not even entirely sure what's legal

00:03:20.360 and what's not. And apparently, Kyle Rittenhouse gave the prosecutor a little lesson on Wisconsin's

00:03:27.140 gun laws. I didn't see it, but there was an exchange in which Kyle knew that he could not

00:03:35.060 own a handgun, because he was too young. But you can own a hunting rifle at his age, and that's the

00:03:41.940 one he had in his possession, or you can at least, you know, have it under your possession. And Kyle

00:03:47.980 actually explained to the prosecutor, as if the prosecutor didn't already know it, and I think

00:03:52.760 maybe he didn't, that it would have been illegal to have a handgun, but perfectly legal for him to

00:03:57.680 have a long-barreled rifle. And apparently, the prosecutor was finding that out at the trial

00:04:05.620 from the defendant. Are you kidding me? Now, as Turley points out, and I think this is just a given,

00:04:14.340 if the judge, in his best effort, can't understand the gun law, can he send it to the jury?

00:04:24.580 No. No. Not in any world can the judge instruct the jury to consider that law, because the judge

00:04:33.280 doesn't understand the law. That's real. Have you ever heard of this? Now, I'm sure people who are,

00:04:42.580 you know, legal scholars and lawyers have heard of something like this, but I haven't. Have you ever

00:04:48.640 heard the judge not understanding the law, because the law is so poorly written, that, oh, he threw it

00:04:55.540 down already? Has that already happened? Oh, I'm seeing in the comments that he threw it down already.

00:05:04.320 Well, that's what I was going to predict, right? It was an easy prediction that he would throw that

00:05:11.820 out, or it will be thrown out. Okay. So I guess I'm not clear what has or has not happened. Will

00:05:19.360 be thrown out, I guess, is the answer. Hasn't been yet. Okay. So, the National Guard

00:05:32.320 put 500 troops into Kenosha, just in case there's some rioting after the verdict. Now, here's

00:05:42.820 a way to reframe this same statement, and see if this doesn't disgust you. Why is it that

00:05:51.320 we need 500 National Guard? Why do we need 500 National Guards? Well, in case of trouble. But

00:05:59.640 why is there a possibility of trouble? Is there a possibility of trouble because of what Kyle

00:06:05.580 did? Not really, because what he did was self-defense. Is there a possibility of trouble

00:06:13.200 because the fake news industry has convinced people that justice will not be served because

00:06:19.300 he's white? Yes, they have. Now, let me connect the dots here. There are 500 National Guard people

00:06:30.400 deployed because of the fake news. Is that statement incorrect or perfectly correct? We have 500 National

00:06:41.800 Guard deployed strictly because of the fake news. Not because of anything Kyle did, because at this point,

00:06:49.040 we know he didn't do anything. And presumably, the jury will either decide that or decide some lesser

00:06:56.560 charge that will make people mad anyway. Have we ever seen this before? Is this the first time we can

00:07:04.380 say with complete clarity that the National Guard were called out to protect against the fake news?

00:07:11.140 We called out the fucking National Guard to protect against the fucking fake news. That's happening right

00:07:20.460 now. And do you know who's going to say that on the news? Nobody. Because it's the fucking news. And they can tell

00:07:27.860 you anything is news and you'll believe it. The news is the reason there are 500 people to protect us from each

00:07:34.740 other. The news did this to us. Nobody else. Kyle didn't do this. The people who attacked Kyle didn't do

00:07:41.480 this. Nobody did this except the fucking fake news. And we need 500 National Guard to keep us from tearing

00:07:50.140 each other apart because of the fucking fake news. Who else is going to tell you this today?

00:07:58.100 Probably nobody. I'm probably the only person who will tell you this. And when you hear it, you say

00:08:03.940 to yourself, oh shit, that's true, isn't it? It's not about anything that the actors did. It's just the

00:08:09.240 news. That's the only reason that we will be at each other. And if somebody dies today, or tonight,

00:08:17.260 it's because of the news. It's not because of Kyle.

00:08:19.340 All right. Remember I told you that I used to rewrite my lawyers the shorter documents? I didn't do this

00:08:31.160 with the longer, you know, big stakes kind of stuff. But on shorter documents, I would just rewrite the

00:08:38.160 legalese into English. And my lawyer would look at it and say, ah, okay, that basically says the same

00:08:44.040 thing. Um, and here's this law about guns in Wisconsin that's so complicated because of the

00:08:49.680 legalese, presumably, that, uh, you can't even understand it. Well, in other news, Epstein's, uh,

00:08:58.500 partner, uh, whose first name is either pronounced, uh, Ghislaine or G-H-I-S. I prefer to pronounce it

00:09:09.020 G-H-I-S. So Ghislaine Maxwell. Uh, she's going, she's going to trial and I wonder if this is going

00:09:17.060 to change everything. Don't you wonder that? Because whatever comes out of this trial is

00:09:23.800 going to be surprising, but maybe surprising in a non-surprising way. You know what I mean?

00:09:29.760 Um, this could change everything in the world. Couldn't it? Because depending on what name she

00:09:38.220 decides to drop, countries could fall. Is that too much? I think, well, not countries, but governments.

00:09:47.440 I think governments might fall because of this trial. I mean, I don't know for sure, but it looks

00:09:53.760 like governments might fall. Um, it could be that big. So we'll see. But anyway, I, um, if anybody had

00:10:02.540 a more perfect name for their crime, uh, I would call her, uh, Ghislaine Maxwell. She maximized the

00:10:09.540 Ghislaine for Epstein. And boy, did she do that. Well, I'm introducing a new segment today. I call

00:10:17.560 dumb celebrities, dumb celebrities. You ready? Dumb celebrity. Number one, Deborah Messing.

00:10:24.520 She tweeted two charts, one showing the unemployment, unemployment claims are way down

00:10:29.740 compared to the Trump administration and the stock market is up. And she says in her tweet,

00:10:36.740 and she tweets at the Senate GOP, house GOP and the GOP leaders, because she wants the GOP to know

00:10:42.620 this. And then she puts it in all caps. Now, if a celebrity uses all caps, well, you really

00:10:49.800 have to pay attention to that. So in all claps, she says, just to be clear, just to be clear,

00:10:57.760 people, just to be clear, all caps. This means, uh, POTUS is doing a fantastic job, all caps,

00:11:04.960 fantastic job, fantastic job, right? I mean, these two charts show that Biden's doing a fantastic job,

00:11:12.940 right? Right? It's obvious, isn't it? Right? Right? Hey, everybody, it's obvious. No. And then she

00:11:20.400 goes, I'll wait, I'll wait, because it's so obvious, according to her graphs, that Biden's doing a

00:11:27.760 fantastic job. Hashtag Biden, hashtag Biden delivers. So I responded to this and say, and said, uh,

00:11:37.220 no, it just means there was a pandemic. That's it. It just means there was a pandemic. And if, uh,

00:11:45.680 Trump had been president, you know, through the pandemic until now, the stock market would have

00:11:51.140 been up and, uh, the unemployment claims would be down compared to where they were.

00:11:57.760 So here's a celebrity who honestly can't tell the difference between coming out of a pandemic

00:12:03.560 and doing a good job. She couldn't tell the difference. And she thinks it's so obvious

00:12:09.360 that she can do it in caps and be sarcastic about it and sort of dunk on you, because you don't

00:12:16.020 understand how good a job Biden's doing, even though the numbers don't show anything like that.

00:12:22.700 All right. Dumb celebrities. Number two, Ben and Jerry's. Now they don't own Ben and Jerry's

00:12:29.400 anymore. They sold it, but they're still in the news and they're usually in the news because

00:12:34.760 they're telling us how to be better people. Am I right? That's sort of Ben and Jerry's thing.

00:12:40.500 How to be better people on this world, better, better caretakers of the planet, just better

00:12:46.160 people. Um, Ben and Jerry's became millionaires by selling ice cream to fat people. Uh, and they're

00:12:55.860 here to tell us how to be better people. Well, one way to be a better person, I'm just going

00:13:01.420 to put that out here. Uh, if you're looking for ways to be a better person, don't sell ice cream

00:13:07.100 to fat people. No, don't do that because that's not good for them. It's the number one health

00:13:14.220 problem. Um, so it turns out that, uh, the left and even the, the, the deep left is starting

00:13:23.060 to have some doubts about the honesty of their own media. They're starting to catch on. That's

00:13:31.660 right. People on the left are starting to suspect just getting a little hint that maybe not all

00:13:38.820 of the news they're hearing on social media as well as the news. Maybe it's not all 100%

00:13:45.620 accurate. Case in point, a member of the young Turks in a, uh, uh, in a gaspura. Um, yeah, I think

00:13:59.240 it's, you know, yeah, Anna Kasparian. Um, she basically did a, did a piece in which she

00:14:08.500 said, uh, her understanding of the Rittenhouse trial had changed completely because apparently

00:14:14.260 the, the media had bamboozled her. So if even the young Turks is realizing that the news is

00:14:23.940 lying to them, I feel like that's some deeper penetration of the idea that the news is not

00:14:30.660 real. The right knows this clearly. The left still is figuring it out, but they're starting

00:14:37.160 to figure it out. Well, do you follow, how many of you read Axios? Uh, it's a news, a newer

00:14:44.120 news source, Axios. I'm going to give them a little shout out today. I do read them. Um,

00:14:50.200 it's one of the, one of the ones I try to hit every day, but, uh, and one of the reasons

00:14:56.580 I do it is I'm trying to figure out where CNN and Fox news are getting it wrong because Axios

00:15:02.220 tends to be a little bit more balanced. I don't know. Maybe sometimes they're not. So, but,

00:15:09.320 um, I will note that they apparently were not part of the fake reporting on the Steele dossier.

00:15:14.820 How about that? That's worth a shout out. Now I did a fact check on this. This is a claim

00:15:21.020 from Axios, right? So one of Axios is, uh, writers, Josh, uh, Krushauer. He's talking

00:15:28.520 about a reckoning is hitting news organizations for the years old coverage of the Steele dossier.

00:15:33.880 But, uh, I don't, I don't remember if Josh said it or somebody else said it in the article

00:15:37.940 that Axios itself had not, had not taken the bait on the Steele dossier. Is that true?

00:15:44.820 Can anybody confirm that, that they did not take the bait on that? They may have covered

00:15:49.720 it as a story that's being covered, but I don't know that they treated it as real at

00:15:53.620 any point. Anyway, um, they're, you know, they're talking about how the news organizations

00:16:00.820 need to, uh, deal with it. Apparently some of them are just going back and changing the

00:16:05.120 original reporting and adding some clarifiers. You know, instead of saying, well, we were wrong,

00:16:10.380 we lied to you. Not only did we lie to you, we got Pulitzer Prizes for lying to you in

00:16:15.400 one case. And, uh, so the, the fake news industry is just trying to hide their, um, their awfulness.

00:16:26.220 All right. Uh, Rasmussen had a poll in which they asked, uh, do you trust political news you're

00:16:31.080 beginning? What do you think people said? What percentage do you think of registered voters?

00:16:37.580 Uh, or I think they usually do likely voters. Um, what percentage do you think trust the political

00:16:45.700 news? 25%. Okay. Okay. You're way ahead of me. Yeah. It turns out it's 33% trust, trust,

00:16:59.080 trust the political news. But remember, I always tell you that something, something in the neighborhood

00:17:04.460 of 25% of the public gets every question wrong. And I don't know if it's the same one. I don't know

00:17:11.180 if it's the same 25% every time. Maybe it depends on the topic, but sure enough, 33% of the country

00:17:18.240 actually trusts the political news. Now this isn't even a left, right thing, is it? I don't think this

00:17:24.980 has to do with the left or the right. How could you possibly trust the political news? How could

00:17:30.580 you be alive for the last five years and say, yeah, I think the political news is usually

00:17:34.880 pretty accurate. How could you possibly think that? Um, all right. I guess Biden is preparing

00:17:45.740 to, uh, have a Zoom meeting with, uh, China's, uh, President Xi, Xi Jinping. Um, how do you

00:17:54.660 think that's going to go? I can't think of anything that would be more of a waste of time than Biden

00:18:01.700 and President Xi talking over Zoom and speaking a different language. How would that, how's that

00:18:09.700 ever going to work? Now I get that, you know, it's a pandemic and everything. So we do things

00:18:14.820 differently, but don't we all agree that an in-person meeting feels completely different

00:18:19.880 than a Zoom? That's still true, right? Or have we evolved to the point where an, uh, a Zoom meeting

00:18:26.320 is just as good? I don't think we have. I feel that there's something about us as human beings that

00:18:33.600 makes personal contact more substantial. So I think that maybe having Zoom meetings would be good

00:18:41.940 at lower levels of government, but I don't know. I don't even know if this is good. I mean, I suppose

00:18:49.060 we have to have continual contact and let them know what we're thinking, but there's no way that this

00:18:54.020 is going to make anything better because I don't think Zoom does that or whatever, whatever they're

00:18:59.560 using won't be Zoom. Uh, I guess the Trump Hotel, uh, Trump International in Washington DC, uh, is

00:19:08.200 getting sold. Um, I, I stayed at the Trump International in Washington DC when I visited President Trump

00:19:17.520 and it was one of the worst hotels I've ever stayed in. I got to tell you, my room was maybe the worst

00:19:24.480 room I've been in in years. Why? Um, first of all, my room didn't have a window, uh, at below, uh, below

00:19:35.820 person level. So there was like a raised couple of windows that you couldn't see through, but they're

00:19:42.680 up high. And we got a notice, we got a notice while I was staying there that we should keep those drapes

00:19:49.940 closed because the window washers were working. So the only light from the outside into this room

00:19:56.900 was these little high up windows that I had to keep the drapes closed. So I basically sat in a

00:20:04.520 darkened, uh, darkened unimpressive room until it was time for my meeting. Uh, yeah, it's the old

00:20:13.980 post office, uh, building, I guess. So, uh, the lobby and bar area are, are attractive. That's

00:20:20.840 true. Yes. The down, the downstairs is quite attractive. Also, when I was there, I didn't

00:20:25.560 see many other people. It did seem like it was a little bit empty when I was there. I didn't see

00:20:30.560 people in the hallways, et cetera. Um, so I would say that the Trumps are smart to get rid of that hotel.

00:20:38.800 Um, that would be not exactly the jewel in the crown of their holdings. So good for them getting

00:20:45.380 rid of that. Um, remember I told you that, uh, I, I know the news before you do. I'll just give you a

00:20:52.960 teaser. Tomorrow you're going to see a poll, uh, on politics. So I'll just tell you that the topic is

00:21:01.060 politics. And the, the result has been described as, and I quote, stunning, stunning. So you're going

00:21:13.780 to see a poll result tomorrow that, uh, has been described by somebody who's seen it as stunning.

00:21:22.560 And I have enough information about it that it's going to be stunning. So basically, uh, wait for that.

00:21:29.760 All right. Have I told you before that one way to, uh, persuade, especially persuading people who

00:21:38.280 are hard to persuade, uh, is, no, it's a professional poll. It's not, it's not one of my

00:21:44.260 Twitter polls. It's a professional poll. Um, have I told you that one way to, uh, persuade is to

00:21:51.620 enter somebody's frame if their frame is absurd? So if somebody is making a worldview claim that's

00:21:59.180 absurd, arguing against it, Hey, that's not real, or you're looking at it wrong, hardly ever works.

00:22:05.840 But sometimes you can enter their frame and show them how absurd it is from the inside.

00:22:12.020 And you have to hear examples of this. So here's the example, uh, Bernie Sanders, as you know,

00:22:18.380 was having this little exchange with Elon Musk about taxes and what your fair share is.

00:22:23.480 And what Bernie would like you to know is that, uh, rich people should pay their quote,

00:22:29.760 fair share. Now that's the absurd frame that Bernie has because there's no such thing as fair.

00:22:37.220 It literally is just an opinion. It doesn't mean anything. There's no standard for fair.

00:22:42.120 Fair. So instead of arguing against fair, which would be impossible, you do the opposite. You

00:22:50.680 embrace it. And you say, you know, Bernie, I think we should have fair taxation. So let's figure out,

00:22:58.500 since fairness is a somewhat subjective, you would agree with that, wouldn't you, Bernie?

00:23:03.120 Hey, Bernie, would you agree that fairness is not an objective standard? Rather, it's subjective.

00:23:09.540 Would you agree with that? I think you'd get him to say yes. Yes. You know it when you see it.

00:23:15.660 Wouldn't you say? It's sort of like art. Fairness is something you know when you see it.

00:23:20.780 You don't need to be too technical about it. You just know it when you see it.

00:23:24.540 Are we agreed, Bernie? Bernie, can you agree with me that, um, ordinary people will, will recognize

00:23:32.360 fairness and they will certainly recognize unfairness when they see it. Can we agree on that?

00:23:38.220 Because we both think fairness is how the tax system should be done. Absolutely. It should

00:23:44.480 be fair. So how would we figure out what is fair? How would you go about that? Well, I

00:23:52.040 have a suggestion that I think Bernie would love. You do a poll. Now I did a little, uh, you

00:23:59.060 know, sample poll of this on Twitter. So this is the non-scientific version of a poll.

00:24:04.000 And I said to the public, what is the closest to the, quote, fair share of all taxes combined

00:24:11.000 that the top 1% should pay? Now, if people read it carefully, they'd see all taxes combined.

00:24:17.720 Uh, I'm going to read this $49.99 comment and then get back to it. He paid a lot of money

00:24:31.700 for this on, on, uh, YouTube.

00:24:34.720 Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott, for a man who insists on attempting to persuade his audience that

00:24:39.920 all pertinent knowledge is unknowable, why do you nonetheless persist in its dissemination?

00:24:45.820 To what level of futility are we engaging with here?

00:24:48.620 Um, so I'm telling you that all information is hard to trust. So what's the point of talking

00:24:58.440 about it? Is that your point? I'm not sure I quite understand the point, but you paid almost $50

00:25:03.200 for it. So I thought I'd give it some attention. Now I'm going to say the thing, same thing that,

00:25:08.420 uh, Viva Fry says on his show all the time. I don't encourage you to, uh, do the super chats.

00:25:15.240 I don't encourage you to do that. I appreciate it. I mean, nobody says no to money, but, uh, I don't,

00:25:24.120 I don't encourage it because I'm not sure you get your money's worth out of that.

00:25:28.920 Anyway, so I did a little poll on Twitter and said to people, in your opinion, what would be the

00:25:33.600 fair share of all taxes? Now all taxes combined, it was my question, and that would include federal,

00:25:39.460 state, um, in, you know, in every, every form of taxation. Now, how much do the top 1% pay?

00:25:46.980 Let's say me, I'll use me for example. What do you think I pay in terms of taxes? If you looked at

00:25:53.020 all my taxes. So I've got California state taxes that are sky high. I've got federal, then I've got

00:25:59.600 property tax, I've got sales tax, auto tax, everything else. What do you think I pay?

00:26:05.260 Yeah, it's probably 60%. Probably 60% tax rate. Something like that. It might be a lot higher,

00:26:14.700 but I think it's around 60%. Now of, of the money I earn, it takes 60% away. Of the 40% that I,

00:26:22.880 that I earn, how much of that do I spend on my own consumption? What do you think? How much of

00:26:30.420 the money I earn is my own consumption? Very little, because I, I don't need that much and I

00:26:37.840 have a high income. So is that fair? Is it fair that the government takes 60% and then what's left,

00:26:46.180 uh, other people who are not working take 90%? And I'm left with about 10%. Is it fair that I get to

00:26:52.820 keep 10% of my money working every fucking day for 30 years? Do I get to keep 10%? Is that, is that,

00:27:01.200 does that seem okay to you? That I work every fucking day, every fucking day for 35 years. Do I get to

00:27:08.860 keep 10%? That would seem, is that, is that okay? 10%? All right. So here's how you deal with Bernie.

00:27:18.640 You say, Bernie, let's settle this. Let's ask the country to tell us what the top 1% would pay. I asked

00:27:24.960 the same question by, on Twitter. And 1% of the people, oh no, I'm sorry. 29% answered that the top 1%

00:27:34.140 should pay 1%. If you're the top 1%, you should pay 1% of, of the tax bill. The real number is 40%

00:27:44.800 of just the federal tax. So, so that, that's the current tax is 40%. The top 1% are paying 40% of all

00:27:52.860 the tax bill for the whole country. But if you ask people what is fair, only 18% said that 40% would

00:28:00.080 be fair. And keep in mind, I said combined taxes. So the people who say 40% is fair are really

00:28:06.320 saying 40% is fair, but the rich are actually playing closer to 60. So even that is 50% lower

00:28:14.020 than the current tax rates for some of us. 19% said it should be 30%. 34% said it should be 20%.

00:28:23.120 And 29% said it should be 1%. So in other words, um, over 60% thought it should be way, way less

00:28:33.860 than it currently is to be fair. So let's ask Bernie to figure out what is fair by asking the public

00:28:42.260 a nice random sample, not a, not a rigged poll like mine is, but a random sample. And then we'll say,

00:28:49.860 okay, if that's fair, let's go with that. Because you know, what's going to happen is that if you ask

00:28:56.900 the public what's fair, they will come up with a number that's not even close to what the rich people

00:29:02.420 actually pay. It won't even be close. Now I've done this, this kind of, uh, you know, unscientific poll

00:29:09.300 before. So I know that people don't have any idea how much taxes rich people pay. You have no idea.

00:29:17.100 And by the way, you know, almost all rich people are supporting lots of other people,

00:29:25.140 me included. Do you know how many rich people, how many, uh, people are supported by every rich

00:29:30.840 person, every one rich person? It's a lot. It's a lot. Anyway, uh, Dave Portnoy, you know, his,

00:29:40.760 uh, his situation over at Barstool, um, the media entity, Barstool. And, uh, he was the subject of a

00:29:49.500 hit piece recently by Business Insider about his sex life. But because, uh, I guess they picked the

00:29:57.700 wrong guy. If you're the media and you're going to go after somebody, don't go after somebody who is

00:30:05.600 this good in public and has this big a media platform. I mean, you know, it's sort of like,

00:30:13.940 uh, by analogy, it's sort of like, uh, taking a run at the king. If, if you can't put him down

00:30:20.560 and they didn't, you know, they tried to put Portnoy down. If you don't put him down,

00:30:26.380 he's going to get stronger. And I think that's what's happening. So now a second entity looks like

00:30:32.600 they, uh, allegedly may be taking a run at a second hit piece that looks like it was assigned

00:30:38.060 about the same time. So at about the same time as the Business Insider hit piece on his love life,

00:30:44.660 there was a separate one, uh, on his quote alleged toxic workplace. What are the odds that this one

00:30:53.600 media figure, Dave Portnoy, would be the subject of two hit pieces on the two most critical parts of

00:31:00.900 his life, you know, his personal life, and then his business separately. And they would be assigned

00:31:05.460 at the same time. None of this shit is an accident, right? This is the Democrats picking off, um,

00:31:15.000 important voices on who may be Trump supporters, or at least even leading that direction.

00:31:19.900 Now, I told you that they've already made a run at me and there will be more before the election of

00:31:26.960 2024. Watch how many hit pieces either happen without my involvement about me, um, and how many

00:31:34.300 they try. I'll tell you when they try because I'll be turning them down because they like, they like to

00:31:39.500 get you on the record so that they can misquote you. That's why they do it, by the way. The reason

00:31:45.960 they would want to spend time with the subject of the hippies is to get the subject to say things

00:31:51.240 that they can misquote. And if you think that I'm kidding about that, not at all. Not at all. That

00:31:58.680 is the game. The game is the misquote. That's everything they're looking for is a misquote. Now

00:32:03.560 when I say misquote, I mean that includes out of context. It doesn't mean actually changing the

00:32:08.460 words they said. They don't always do that. But they can change the context to make it into something

00:32:13.760 it isn't. Project Veritas, uh, you know that the government has targeted them because we don't

00:32:21.020 have a, uh, government that is legitimate anymore. At least the FBI is not legitimate, in my opinion.

00:32:27.620 And our intel agencies are not legitimate. So we have a pretty illegitimate government at this point.

00:32:33.860 But, uh, even the, as, uh, as, uh, Hermit Dillon, uh, attorney, uh, points out, she's the attorney

00:32:41.920 for, uh, Project Veritas, I believe, uh, points out that even the ACLU, who you expect to be,

00:32:48.780 you know, far, far, far left, even they say, okay, this is too far. That the raid on, uh, Project

00:32:55.840 Veritas, uh, that even the ACLU is condemning the FBI raid on them. That, do you know how far,

00:33:03.800 do you know how far you have to go before the ACLU will back somebody on the right?

00:33:11.840 You have to really be bad before the ACLU will say, damn it, we're going to have to take the side

00:33:19.000 of the right this time. It's going to be too obvious if we don't. That's bad. Um, did you notice

00:33:27.600 that CNN has gone, uh, guns hot on, uh, Kamala Harris? So if you look at the top left of CNN's,

00:33:37.380 uh, website, that's where they put the news they want you to notice the most. All websites put the

00:33:42.680 important stuff in the top left if they know what they're doing. The, the entire top left is about

00:33:48.120 how Kamala Harris is incompetent on CNN. Not one story, multiple stories on CNN about the vice

00:34:00.080 president's incompetence, especially your staff. It more, more focus on the staff, but of course

00:34:05.840 that accrues to her as well. The cat is on the roof. It turns out that somebody is trying to get

00:34:14.000 rid of Kamala Harris and trying pretty hard because she's been a disaster. There isn't any way she

00:34:18.660 could win a general election against really anybody at this point. And, uh, CNN is, uh, to their credit,

00:34:27.520 I think, they're going after her hard. Now here's what I think. I think CNN has orders from the

00:34:34.720 Democratic Party. What do you think? I don't believe that CNN independently said, let's take it,

00:34:40.980 let's take down, uh, Harris. There's no way that that's not a coordinated move with somebody

00:34:47.740 in the Democratic Party. So they're looking for the replacement. It's very clear. And they've got

00:34:54.580 a problem because Biden probably can't last for another term, even if, you know, it's unlikely he

00:35:00.220 could win. But she's certainly not going to be the one. And now they have to figure out who is the one

00:35:05.620 and to figure out how to do that. There's some, there's some conversation that she would be put

00:35:10.680 on the Supreme Court just to open her job for somebody else. I don't believe that one. I don't

00:35:17.420 see her on the Supreme Court. I don't think she's got the weight for that, that kind of thing.

00:35:24.500 All right. There's a, uh, so a tweet by Dr. Joseph Mercola. He would be in the category of those

00:35:31.040 doctors that I call the rogue doctors, the doctors who were taking the contrarian view on,

00:35:36.600 uh, pandemic related stuff. So you may have seen him on Twitter, Dr. Joseph Mercola. And he talks,

00:35:44.040 he tweets about a story about a, uh, school in, uh, where is it? Somewhere in America. There's a school

00:35:51.020 that had to close because, uh, they didn't have enough teachers, including substitute teachers. They

00:35:56.860 didn't have enough to keep the school open because of all the teachers who complained and took sick

00:36:01.780 days after getting the booster shot. And so Dr. Mercola says, uh, you think they closed schools due

00:36:11.060 to soreness at the injection site? Do you think, do you think that's why everybody's calling in sick?

00:36:16.420 Because there's a little bit of soreness in the arm? Um, it's interesting. I'm reading your comment,

00:36:26.980 but I'm not going to talk about that now. Um, so what do you think? Is there any other explanation

00:36:33.740 for why this school would have to close because so many teachers were complaining of side effects

00:36:39.380 from the vaccination? Is there any other explanation for why a school would have to close

00:36:44.460 because so many teachers had to call in sick after getting vaccinated? Any other reason?

00:36:50.620 Or is the reason that the vaccinations are, are shit and you shouldn't get them? Is that the only

00:36:55.220 reason? Well, I could come up with three. Number one is statistical clustering, meaning that on any

00:37:04.360 given day, somewhere in the United States, a lot of teachers are sick at the same time in one place.

00:37:10.320 Guaranteed. Statistics are not smooth over all of the places in the world. Statistics are randomly,

00:37:20.260 you know, usually, or could be randomly distributed. But even with random distribution,

00:37:26.760 you're guaranteed if you have enough, let's say schools in this case, if you have lots and lots of

00:37:31.780 schools, every day, one of those schools will have too many teachers called in sick. Every day.

00:37:38.580 So one explanation is that nothing happened. A lot of people call in sick every day. Some of them

00:37:47.740 maybe had some side effects from the vaccine. Not impossible. But others may have just said,

00:37:54.340 oh, I was not feeling good today. Here's another possible explanation. Teachers are lying to get days

00:38:01.800 off. Do you think the teachers didn't know that they could claim they had side effects from the

00:38:07.920 booster and get a day off? Of course they do. They knew that all they had to do is say, you know,

00:38:14.500 I'm feeling a little tired and shaky today. Day off. And we live in a world in which employees give

00:38:21.620 themselves vacation days by claiming fake illness. It's just routine. The entire country is filled

00:38:29.920 with people taking time off and claiming they're sick. Maybe it's just that because it's easy to

00:38:36.220 claim this and nobody's going to question it. The other third possibility, which would explain what

00:38:43.100 we see is local mass hysteria. When I say local, I mean, since only the town itself was aware of this

00:38:51.600 situation, it could be that one teacher had a real problem and then the others thought,

00:38:56.720 hmm, I'm feeling a little shaky and tired too. Maybe I'd better take a day off. Or it could be some

00:39:02.740 combination of the three things I mentioned. Or it could be exactly what Dr. Joseph Mercola suggests.

00:39:08.760 He could be exactly right. That the vaccinations have more side effects than are being reported.

00:39:17.080 I'm just saying that when somebody asks you what else could it be, make sure you know

00:39:25.020 the other possibilities because there are other things that could be. And I don't know if they're

00:39:31.060 even less likely. They're certainly all possible. So that's your lesson right there.

00:39:38.760 I continue to come up with ways to identify NPCs. Now, NPCs would be non-player characters.

00:39:53.580 And it assumes that we live in a simulation that's built like a game. And this is not a base

00:40:01.040 reality. Now, if that's true, and I think it's a trillion to one odds that it is true. But if it's

00:40:07.920 true, how do you find the characters that are not actually player characters, but they're just sort

00:40:13.540 of background scenery? I have four potential tells. I'm not convinced any of these are good,

00:40:21.980 and I'm not convinced that NPCs exist. But just for fun. This is just for fun, right? Don't take any

00:40:28.860 of it too seriously. Number one, an NPC is somebody who wouldn't change their opinion even as the data

00:40:34.860 changes. Because you imagine the NPCs have less programming, right? They just don't have as many

00:40:41.640 options. They just don't have the range of action that a real person would have. So an NPC would not

00:40:47.960 change its opinion even if the data changes, right? Because they wouldn't have that flexibility.

00:40:54.440 But a real player character might. Might change their mind if the data changes, right? Number two,

00:41:01.980 they have absolute opinions as opposed to statistical opinions. And it doesn't matter if they're on the

00:41:07.260 left or the right. But if they say, for example, the election was stolen, 100%. Or if they say the

00:41:15.660 election wasn't stolen, 100%. That's an NPC. It doesn't matter which side you're on. Because we

00:41:23.340 don't know. I mean, the actual real person way to look at it is, I don't know. I mean, I suspect it

00:41:30.960 was stolen, or probably stolen, or probably not. Now, those are opinions that could be, you know,

00:41:38.620 right or wrong. But they're not NPC opinions. They're just somebody who doesn't know, which is exactly the

00:41:45.020 right place to be. Number three, they don't have any stories to tell. Have you noticed that some

00:41:52.600 people always have stories? You could give me almost any topic, and I'll tell you a story in my life

00:41:58.300 that has some relationship to it. Now, I'm a writer, so maybe it's easier for me. But there are people

00:42:05.320 who can't tell you a story about anything. And the suggestion here is that they've been programmed

00:42:11.440 without much history. So they don't have any stories. Because they're NPCs. And then the fourth

00:42:18.880 one, I'll just throw this out to be argumentative. They believe analogies are the same things as

00:42:25.660 arguments. Because if you're going to program your NPCs, you just say, okay, just follow patterns.

00:42:32.800 Just whatever the pattern is, just do that. If you see a pattern, just trust it. So the NPCs would

00:42:41.200 see analogies as meaning something. Whereas people who are real people would see analogies as just

00:42:49.000 analogies. It's a different situation that might tell you something about yours. But it's not an

00:42:54.180 argument. It's just a whole different situation. Oh, also, they're really bad at analogies, maybe.

00:43:00.960 NPCs in a video game also repeat useful things to help you complete your quest. So maybe they

00:43:11.740 repeat themselves. Maybe they only say a certain number of things. Now, the other, oh, I guess I

00:43:17.360 should have added a fifth. A fifth would be movie references as opposed to useful conversation.

00:43:24.800 So if somebody is saying to you, oh, that's like The Matrix or that's Soylent Green. There's a few

00:43:32.400 other movies that people always mention.

00:43:36.780 Oh, wow. Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto could be unmasked at a Florida trial. That's not,

00:43:44.660 that's got to be fake news. I'm saying something that looks like fake news. How in the world could the

00:43:50.240 creator of Bitcoin be unmasked? That would, that would, that's just not possible, right?

00:44:02.200 Am I right? Do I, do I understand Bitcoin well enough to say that you could never uncover

00:44:08.840 who it is in a court case unless you actually had that person in court? And even then, I'm not sure if

00:44:15.060 it would work. Right? Oh, okay. We do have a, Erica is saying that the Rittenhouse gun charges have

00:44:28.700 been dismissed. The gun charges have been dismissed. Thank you. What did I tell you the other day?

00:44:37.800 I told you that the, our court system in the United States is the jewel of the Republic.

00:44:46.360 This might be a good example. I'm hoping that this goes the way I would expect it to.

00:44:56.160 Wait a minute. Now I'm seeing somebody else saying the opposite. Now the court finds Kyle

00:45:00.380 Rittenhouse, oh, lawfully carried it. I'm sorry. Yes, lawfully, that's the same.

00:45:07.800 Um, they're going hard on the provocation angle. Yeah. All right.

00:45:17.220 So, um, good for the court system if it comes to the right conclusion. And it looks like it is.

00:45:24.160 I have some, uh, faith in this judge. Having watched the judge's operation, uh, I feel like

00:45:30.380 things are going to go the right direction here. Steve Bannon turned himself in this morning.

00:45:35.620 Um, jail the prosecutor. I feel like, I feel like that's warranted. It might be a bad precedent

00:45:47.500 to put a prosecutor in jail, but there has to be some limit to bad behavior. And I don't

00:45:54.520 know how you decide objectively what that limit is, but my subjective opinion is that he crossed

00:46:00.620 it. Um, the judge kind of looks like me. No, he doesn't. You're just saying all bald white

00:46:11.460 guys with glasses look alike. Well, we do. It's kind of true. Um, what does it mean if

00:46:20.500 it doesn't go in the right direction? Well, the jury can do anything. You know, the jury can

00:46:25.040 find whatever they want. So there's still some risk. Oh yeah. So I, I forgot about this

00:46:31.860 story. So it turns out that Pete Buttigieg is not in charge of the infrastructure spending.

00:46:38.240 Did you know that? Pete Buttigieg is not, they, apparently some new guy has been appointed to

00:46:44.000 be the infrastructure czar because Buttigieg couldn't handle that or it wasn't, didn't make

00:46:50.600 sense in his portfolio. Which is it? That's really not much of a, uh, uh, confidence in

00:46:59.000 Buttigieg, is it? I wonder, I wonder if somebody's trying to keep Buttigieg from becoming president

00:47:06.240 on the Democrat side. Doesn't this feel like if anybody wanted Buttigieg to be president,

00:47:12.160 they would give him the portfolio? Right? Am I wrong? If they wanted Buttigieg to have a high

00:47:19.440 enough profile from his, you know, boring job that he's in so that he could run for president,

00:47:24.460 they would give him the portfolio and make sure that you knew he was the one making the decisions.

00:47:30.160 I think the Democrats just kneecapped Buttigieg. Am I wrong? Am I reading too much into that?

00:47:38.260 It could be that Buttigieg just had too much, you know, on his plate for the normal job and he

00:47:43.000 couldn't handle it. But it looks like the Democrats just took out Kamala Harris and took out Buttigieg.

00:47:49.140 Who are they, who are they making space for? They're making space for somebody, aren't they?

00:47:55.340 Because Biden's, I don't, there's no chance Biden's going to run again. So if they take out Biden,

00:48:00.320 Harris and Buttigieg, who's left? Now it's not going to be Tulsi, because she's a little bit too,

00:48:08.080 too middle for the, the left, I think. Not Hillary, not, it's not going to be Michelle Obama.

00:48:14.580 Not Cory Booker, not John Kerry. AOC now, too soon, Maxine Waters now. Isn't this interesting?

00:48:26.720 There has to be some, oh, Newsom. I would love to see Newsom's poll numbers. He might, you know,

00:48:37.560 Newsom is somebody to worry about if you're a Republican to worry about, because he has some

00:48:42.620 serious game. He's really, really good at the politics stuff, in my opinion. Now, I'm not happy

00:48:49.140 with, you know, what he's done to California, but he's definitely good at it. That's for sure.

00:48:59.180 He will turn off independence, maybe. McAuliffe, I doubt it. Yeah, isn't this interesting that we can't

00:49:07.320 think of one person on the Democrat side who would make a suitable president. Now, do the same

00:49:14.000 experiment, except with the Republicans, and say to yourself, okay, if it's not Trump, do they have

00:49:23.220 any strong candidates? Yeah, all kinds of them. So, I mean, you start with DeSantis, he'd be the obvious

00:49:30.440 one. Tom Cotton, strong. Rand Paul, strong. Yeah, I mean, and I would bet you could come

00:49:42.520 up Tim Scott, strong. Yeah, it would be pretty easy to come up with a number of Republicans

00:49:51.280 that you think could be in the fight. Well, I can't think of a Democrat that would even be

00:49:56.420 able to land a punch. Gretchen Whitmer? I don't know. Pompeo? Yeah, even Pompeo would be at least

00:50:10.160 a serious candidate for president. He wouldn't be my first choice. All right. I think we've

00:50:17.940 reached the point where I've done such a good job. Ooh, Joe Manchin. That's interesting. But

00:50:25.880 I don't think the Democrats would support Manchin. So I don't think he can get there.

00:50:32.360 So am I wrong that there is a gigantic lane for somebody to create the middle party? So

00:50:39.540 the problem with Andrew Yang, and the problem with anybody who does a third party, is it looks

00:50:44.560 like a third party. Am I right? Third parties look like where people who are just sick of

00:50:51.260 their party and have given up on being productive, you know, go for their protest vote. And as long

00:50:57.720 as you frame it that way, it's going to stay that way. And I think Yang has somewhat accidentally

00:51:03.260 framed his, you know, third party appeal very narrowly. I'm not even entirely sure what you'd

00:51:11.340 call his proposition. But imagine you said, I'm going to form the middle party. And I'm going to go

00:51:17.160 after the moderate Democrats and the moderate Republicans. And I'm going to acknowledge that

00:51:23.260 they don't agree, even though they're both closer to the middle. I'm going to acknowledge that they

00:51:27.900 don't agree. But I'm going to have them fight it down in public. We'll have a series of debates

00:51:33.240 with the moderates versus the moderates. And we'll publicize it. And I'll help you, you know, sort out

00:51:41.360 what's true. And then we'll try to come up with compromises. And we'll just ignore the far left

00:51:47.820 and the far right as both equally not useful. Now imagine if instead of demonizing the right,

00:51:56.700 the far right, or demonizing the left, the far left, suppose you said everybody in the middle is

00:52:03.320 cool. And that you're the middle party and you invite them all in. Democrats cool, as long as you're

00:52:09.480 toward the middle. Republicans cool, independents, you're all in. You're all cool. The people on the

00:52:15.040 far left and the far right, I will simply dismiss this way. They're not useful. They're not useful to

00:52:22.000 you. They're not useful to the country. They're not even useful to themselves. As soon as you get into

00:52:28.100 the details, you're lost. You know, what they believe and the wokeness and all that. As soon as you start

00:52:33.940 arguing that, you're on their own home territory. Instead, just say the middle party is exclusively

00:52:40.920 going to engage with people who are trying to be useful. And those who are clearly not trying to be

00:52:46.400 useful, we'll just ignore. No, no prejudice. They're all Americans and they need to be taken care of.

00:52:54.060 They have a vote, just like everybody else. So they get full respect, but you don't need to satisfy

00:53:00.440 them because they're not part of the useful middle. Well, actually, how about this? Change the name of the

00:53:08.240 party to the useful middle, not just even middle. The useful middle, two words. How would you not want

00:53:16.160 to be in that category? Would you not want to be in the useful middle? I mean, that's where I'd want to

00:53:27.780 be. I'd want to be in the useful middle because it frames the everything else as being not useful.

00:53:34.400 Even if you believe there are things, it's just not useful. Now, high energy party, too generic.

00:53:43.940 Define far right. Far right, I would say the racists. So I would say that the far right,

00:53:51.060 the farthest right, and the farthest left are both just racists. What do you think of that framing?

00:53:59.720 That the farthest right, you know, the extreme, and the farthest left are just racists. And why

00:54:06.000 would you engage racists on either party? As soon as you get into the, like, the policy differences,

00:54:13.540 how useful is that? Not very. Somebody says wrong.

00:54:24.540 Tyrannical. The useful party, I think you need the useful middle. Somehow that middle

00:54:31.560 adds something, I think. The shrink government party, yeah, good luck with that.

00:54:38.540 All right. I think I've done enough. So YouTube, I'm going to say goodbye right now, and I'll

00:54:48.780 talk to you tomorrow. I hope you enjoyed the show.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 15, 2021

Episode 1562 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About All the Fake News and Celebrity Idiots

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript