Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1839 Scott Adams： Sam Harris & ExCIA Chief General Hayden Make Public Confession About Trump

00:00:00.000 Good morning everybody and welcome to another highlight of civilization. It's called Coffee

00:00:08.200 with Scott Adams and I don't want to get you too excited but today double whiteboard. That's right

00:00:19.440 not just one double-sided. I know it's almost too much to handle but we'll we'll do it together.

00:00:27.740 Together we will handle this awesomeness and I think we can climb this mountain but first we need

00:00:35.320 some fortification and all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stye

00:00:40.220 and a canteen jug or flask a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee

00:00:46.820 and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine of the day. It's the thing that

00:00:54.740 makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it's happening now. Go!

00:01:06.680 Sublime. Oh so good. All right we're going to do a little test a little intelligence test here.

00:01:16.220 Let's see if the locals people can beat the people on YouTube platform who are watching now. All right

00:01:22.100 it's a question for all of you. It's going to be based on a Rasmussen poll and people were asked if

00:01:28.720 they agreed with this statement. This was something that Trump had said at one point. He said quote

00:01:34.660 there is a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI or using the FBI as Joe Biden's personal

00:01:44.120 Gestapo. What percentage of people strongly disagreed with Trump? Strongly disagreed.

00:01:52.980 Whoa. You're pretty good. Pretty good. Yeah the answer is

00:02:00.440 26 who strongly disagreed. So there's 26 strongly disagreed that Joe Biden is using the FBI

00:02:11.760 as his personal Gestapo. I don't have an opinion. I'm just saying that's what the numbers are. 0.58

00:02:18.920 But at the other end, actually if you added together the ones who strongly agree and the

00:02:25.100 ones who agree, you get a much bigger number. All right. Let's see who doesn't agree. A majority

00:02:34.960 see a majority now agree 53% with that statement. Oh actually that I'm sorry that wasn't Trump's

00:02:46.000 quote. That was Roger Stone's quote. So Roger Stone is the one who quoted it. I said it was

00:02:53.040 Trump. It was Stone. But 53% of voters now agree that the FBI is run by a Joe Biden's personal

00:03:01.160 Gestapo. Now that means that there are a lot of independents or at least a smattering of Democrats

00:03:12.300 Democrats who are now in the side of thinking that the FBI is Joe Biden's personal Gestapo.

00:03:29.180 Anyway, the CDC who came under a great deal of criticism for their handling of the pandemic.

00:03:38.300 How do you think the CDC is going to respond to all the criticism? So they're going to take action

00:03:47.120 now. They're responding to the fact that they, I guess they confessed they didn't do as good a job

00:03:51.500 as they'd like to do. What do you think they're going to do about it? What would Dilbert's boss do

00:03:59.320 about it? What would they do about it? Like literally in a Dilbert comic, what would they do

00:04:06.100 about it? They would reorganize. So it appeared that they had done something. That's exactly what

00:04:14.740 my comic would do. Now, do you remember the rule that Elon Musk has for Tesla? Don't do something

00:04:24.200 that could show up in a Dilbert comic. I've never done a comic about Tesla. Just think

00:04:33.020 about that. I've never done a comic about anything that happened to Tesla. So apparently they take

00:04:38.740 that shit seriously. But the CDC, as soon as they're being criticized, they decide that the 1.00

00:04:43.660 response is to reorganize. And I'm thinking to myself, that is exactly my comic. That's exactly

00:04:51.620 my comic. I wouldn't even add anything. That's the joke right there. So good job there, CDC,

00:04:59.840 and making it worse. All right. So yesterday, based on a smart suggestion, I decided to grab

00:05:10.160 the domain hoaxquiz.com. So now I own that domain, hoaxquiz.com. And it seems to me that

00:05:20.100 what we need is some kind of a competitor to Snopes and the other fact checkers. And so,

00:05:28.320 you know, I started with my list of, you know, the top 10 hoaxes, which is now up to 14 people

00:05:33.660 have added to it. So we've got 14 what I would consider confirmed hoaxes. One of them's not

00:05:41.380 quite confirmed, but it looks like it will be. But here's my problem. Here's my problem.

00:05:49.100 I'm not willing to put the hoax quiz up unless I can do conservative hoaxes too.

00:05:55.180 You okay with that? If I say Seth Rich being murdered by Hillary Clinton is a hoax,

00:06:02.660 you're going to be okay with that? Will you? Because if I don't do it, there's no point in

00:06:12.160 doing it at all. Is there? If I don't have conservative hoaxes on there, there's no point

00:06:17.860 in doing it at all. It'd be a complete waste of time. But if I put both of them on there,

00:06:22.800 then what position does that put me in? It puts me above the news. Now, could I pull that off?

00:06:36.180 Probably not. Probably not. It would be pretty tough. But imagine you could create a place where

00:06:44.380 people could go look and find out if the news is promoting a hoax. And let's say you actually

00:06:52.000 were convinced that it showed hoaxes on both sides. It showed the conservative ones as well as

00:06:57.620 the left-leaning ones. Would that make you more likely to find it credible? Before you answer,

00:07:08.900 know for sure that I'm going to tell you things that you believe are true or hoaxes.

00:07:13.820 I can't help it. I can't help it. Because we all have different opinions, right? So there are going

00:07:19.620 to be things on that list that you think are real that I think are a hoax. So you have to be okay

00:07:25.460 with that. Can you handle it? See, the trouble is, this is not the sort of thing you can do right.

00:07:35.980 Can we agree on that? You can do maybe good enough. And good enough would be some kind of a,

00:07:44.000 maybe a guardrail on the fake news so the fake news doesn't get too far out of control.

00:07:48.580 But it wouldn't be possible for me to be right every time. No matter how I judge it or who I bring

00:07:56.820 in to help me judge it, it's not really possible that I'd be right all the time. Should I do it

00:08:02.360 anyway? Knowing that I would be wrong on some notable, probably some big examples too. I don't

00:08:09.020 know what that would be. But should I do it if I know I'm going to be wrong? Yeah, see, already I'm

00:08:15.000 getting pushback on the Seth Rich. Here's what I'd say about Seth Rich. There are rumors, there are

00:08:22.300 rumors that this happened, but there's no evidence of it or no proof of it. Something like that. I'd

00:08:29.520 probably say there's no proof of it. Now, would you be okay with that? See, I don't know if I could

00:08:38.000 call that a hoax. I could just say we don't know one way or the other. So I feel like I need another

00:08:44.440 category. I wanted to do hoax or no hoax and keep it simple. I didn't want to do the slightly true,

00:08:50.600 slightly not true thing. But you probably get forced into it, don't you? Because there's going

00:08:55.040 to be too many gray areas. All right, well, I have the domain and I'll maybe peck at that a little bit

00:09:02.620 and see if it gains some energy to pull me. By the way, here's a little tip. A tip on how to get

00:09:10.820 motivated. Does anybody have trouble getting motivated to do something they know they need

00:09:16.440 to do? Here's a tip. I start lots of things that I know would be interesting or good to do.

00:09:24.960 And I take the first step. And then sometimes I'll take the next small step. But I'm looking for the

00:09:33.540 project to start pulling me, right? So the energy I have on day one, I don't know if that's the same

00:09:40.360 energy I would have if I started going on the project. Because sometimes you get excited and

00:09:44.740 then it gets boring and then, you know. So you've got to find a project where if you seed it, you know,

00:09:49.880 you just give it a nudge, it takes on its own energy and then starts pulling you. I don't know if

00:09:56.220 this one will pull me. I know I had enough energy to register the domain. And I know I have enough

00:10:02.120 energy to think about how it would be. And I put on a question on the Locals platform if anybody

00:10:07.780 wanted to help. But I don't know if I'll yet have enough energy for it to, like, pull me to completion.

00:10:13.560 So I've got a number of projects right now that are in that state. I've done something,

00:10:19.320 a little bit, but I'm seeing which ones are going to start pulling me, right? Now, my book I'm writing,

00:10:25.020 I was pushing that until just recently. Like, it was just work. But more recently, it got to the

00:10:32.940 point where it's shaping up nicely. And so as it starts to shape up, it brings its own energy. It's

00:10:39.880 like, oh, wow, this would be good to finish this book. Because it looks like it's going to be pretty

00:10:45.320 good. So now it's starting to pull me. And I wake up this morning and think, oh, I hope I have time to

00:10:50.500 write that, to spend some time writing. Because I can't wait to, can't wait to fill it down a little

00:10:55.720 bit. All right. Well, Alex Jones is off the Trump train, as people are saying. He's going to, I guess

00:11:04.940 he wants DeSantis to be president. He would prefer him. Now, I don't know what Alex Jones will do if

00:11:10.740 DeSantis doesn't run. What if the only Republican choice is Trump? Will Alex Jones be back? I don't

00:11:22.020 know. Yeah, we'll talk about Sam Harris in a minute. So, Geraldo Rivera made a bold statement on Twitter.

00:11:33.960 Now, I know a lot of you are sort of anti-Geraldo Rivera. But I'm so pro-Geraldo. I'm just totally

00:11:43.440 pro-Geraldo, which is different from agreeing with him. Can we make that distinction? I love the fact

00:11:50.900 that he puts himself out there. I love the fact that he doesn't appear to be afraid of anything.

00:11:56.440 He doesn't seem to be physically afraid of anything. And he doesn't seem to be embarrassment-wise

00:12:01.820 afraid of anything. Yeah, he took off his shirt at age 70 or whatever it was. He's my role model.

00:12:08.740 Yeah. Yeah, Geraldo is absolutely my role model. And again, it has nothing to do with whether I agree

00:12:14.620 or disagree with any opinions. But his, I guess his approach to life is one I think you should all

00:12:22.300 emulate. Yeah, if you could be as, you know, as, let's say, unafraid as he is, your life would look a lot

00:12:30.400 better. It really would. So let's try to separate whether we hate his opinion on any particular

00:12:37.400 topic, because I disagree with him on this particular one I'm going to talk about. But I just love the

00:12:43.060 fact, I just love the fact that he expresses himself with no remorse. Here's what he said

00:12:50.340 in a tweet. Geraldo did. He said, whatever your politics, we should all recognize Liz Cheney's

00:12:56.400 selfless courage in standing up to the Trump title wave. Wyoming Republicans are going to end her

00:13:02.740 congressional career today. I guess this was yesterday. But nothing will wash away the role

00:13:07.140 she played standing up for democracy and the Constitution. Now, I like the fact that he knew

00:13:16.320 he would get absolutely crapped on today for that opinion, and he still put it out there. Still

00:13:22.880 put it out there. I love that. He shows his work, right? He gives his reasons, shows his work. That's

00:13:31.120 all I ask of anybody. If we could learn to appreciate somebody who acts the way he does,

00:13:39.100 even when we disagree, man, we would be so far ahead. So far ahead. All right. But here's what I

00:13:47.960 think about Liz Cheney. I would buy into the selfless courage part. This is Geraldo's characterization.

00:13:58.340 I would buy into it being a selfless act for the country under the following condition.

00:14:05.980 That the way she'd acted had presented some kind of balance. That she was open, for example,

00:14:12.680 to, let's say, open to an argument on both sides and acted in a way that her rhetoric showed 0.98

00:14:20.340 an openness to know, to find out what happened, as opposed to a Captain Ahab mission to kill a white

00:14:28.920 whale, or an orange whale in this case. At what point did Liz Cheney say, we don't know the motivation

00:14:37.160 of the protesters, but a Harvard study just said that the vast majority of them believed that they

00:14:45.400 were saving the Republic, not overthrowing it. Now, if Trump was the primary persuader of the group,

00:14:55.860 and the group had been persuaded that they're trying to save the Republic, isn't that completely

00:15:01.660 different than the way she has presented it so far? Now, independent of what evidence, specific

00:15:10.280 evidence gets presented, if you don't start with the context being right, you're not an honest player.

00:15:18.540 So I don't know what was happening in Liz Cheney's head. I try to be consistent about saying I don't

00:15:23.720 know what people are thinking. But we can say for sure that her actions did not display any balance.

00:15:32.220 Who would disagree? Did her actions show that she was open to an argument and discovery,

00:15:39.140 or did it look like she had an opinion she was trying to just prove no matter what?

00:15:47.400 So, you know, I get her oldest point that it takes a lot of courage to go across the, go against the

00:15:56.320 mainstream. And she had to know she'd paid for it. She had to know there would be a price, right?

00:16:02.380 So I would accept the fact that it's courage. So I would accept courage. But I'm not so sure about

00:16:13.860 selfless, because I feel as though her actions strongly suggested that it was personal. It looked

00:16:22.580 personal. Now, again, we don't know what she's thinking. But if you act in a way that doesn't

00:16:28.840 have balance in a situation that just screams for balance, you know, you should have balance

00:16:34.440 in that situation more than any situation, especially if you're a Republican looking at

00:16:39.140 a Republican. If you can't have balance in that situation, one has to assume that there's

00:16:45.820 something else going on. And I do. All right. I would like to revisit this idea.

00:16:59.380 So Edward, Edward Luce tweeted this. I don't know who he is, but he's just somebody on Twitter.

00:17:05.380 He Twittered, I guess he's a reporter of some kind. I've covered extremism and violent ideologies

00:17:11.960 around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic,

00:17:19.760 dangerous, and contemptible than today's Republicans. Nothing close. Really. 0.79

00:17:28.560 Nihilistic would be people who don't want to follow the rules. Don't want to follow the rules.

00:17:36.240 Would Republicans be a group that doesn't want to follow the laws and the Constitution of

00:17:43.280 the United States? There's someone who actually is smart enough to write sentences and use Twitter

00:17:49.800 who believes that the most central thing about Republicans, that they're rule followers,

00:17:56.520 Constitution, Bible, the law of the land. There's nothing that defines Republicans more

00:18:04.440 than wanting to follow the rules and making sure other people do as well. Nothing defines them more.

00:18:11.120 Period. That's almost baked into the definition of conservative, right?

00:18:17.360 Conservative. Let's do it the way we've been doing it. Follow the rules.

00:18:21.000 All right. But anyway, this is this one person's view that the Republicans are opposite of what

00:18:27.880 it looks to me. And they're dangerous and contemptible. Okay. Now, clearly, some Republicans are dangerous, 0.96

00:18:37.980 as some of every group are, right? But here is the shocking part. General Michael Hayden,

00:18:45.340 ex-CIA director, agreed with this tweet. And he said, I agree. And I was the CIA director.

00:18:54.060 So the guy who was the CIA director believes that Republicans today are more nihilistic, dangerous,

00:19:02.140 and contemptible than anything else around the world, such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, just to pick a

00:19:12.480 couple of examples. Now, I'm not going to disagree with his characterization because that's not the

00:19:18.520 point. The point is that we finally got a direct confession. It's a direct confession. In his

00:19:26.360 opinion, the Republicans are as bad as this. And that would be a complete explanation of why the CIA

00:19:37.420 and the FBI apparently colluded for the Russia collusion hoax. And probably they're colluding

00:19:45.240 again. He says it directly, that he believes that the threat of the Republicans was greater than

00:19:52.520 external threats. So if you would be willing to, you know, assassinate al-Qaeda, what would you be

00:20:01.340 willing to do to a greater threat than al-Qaeda? He doesn't say, but I appreciate the transparency.

00:20:08.680 He's saying completely, he's basically saying that there would be nothing, if you read between the

00:20:14.640 lines, it suggests that there's nothing you wouldn't do. Now, let me say, let me say there's nothing

00:20:22.500 wrong with that. And a little bit, I'm going to agree with Sam Harris, and it's going to make your head

00:20:28.320 just blow up. I agree with General Hayden, that if, in this one narrow sense, I agree. If you really

00:20:38.900 believed that this group was as dangerous as he apparently says he does, then you would break some 0.63

00:20:45.800 rules to stop him, because you would murder Hitler, wouldn't you? I would. I would break a rule to murder 0.86

00:20:53.000 Hitler. So he's basically saying, you know, that the Republicans are worse than al-Qaeda, worse than 0.99

00:21:02.020 external threats. So he doesn't say that he would break a rule to stop them, but I think that's

00:21:07.000 perfectly implied. If you're the director of the CIA, and there's something that's like a mortal threat

00:21:13.520 to your country, I feel like it's implied that you might bend a rule to stop it. And if you wouldn't,

00:21:19.480 what's wrong with you? Would you want anybody who wouldn't bend a rule in that case? I wouldn't

00:21:25.460 want to be around somebody who wouldn't bend the rules in that case. But here's the problem.

00:21:36.760 The fake news is what's our main problem, and we're being distracted. I'm going to go to the

00:21:49.320 whiteboard, and I'm going to tie it all together. You ready for this? Tying it all together.

00:21:54.060 Here's how I see the world. I see the fake news creates extremism. And then the FBI encourages

00:22:08.560 the extremists. And then, not in every case, but in some notable cases, such as Russia collusion,

00:22:16.880 and, you know, there may be something with the Hunter Biden laptop. So basically, every time we see

00:22:23.260 the people in charge who should be protecting us doing sketchy stuff, it makes the extremism worse.

00:22:31.700 Does it not? So between the fake news and the fact that we don't trust the people who are supposed

00:22:37.280 to be protecting us, this creates a feedback loop that creates more fake news, more money, etc.

00:22:44.200 So this is the answer to the question, why don't they ask the would you kill Hitler question? 0.79

00:22:53.200 The question that the media won't ask, because they make money by not asking it, is if you 0.83

00:23:02.180 believe the fake news, if you believe what the news is saying, why wouldn't you murder Republicans?

00:23:08.600 If you believe the news, right? So the news can't ask the question, because they're the problem.

00:23:18.960 So everybody who thinks that the extremists on the left are the problem have been duped by

00:23:24.580 the fake news. Everyone who believes that the extremists on the right are the problem have

00:23:29.820 been duped by the fake news. So General Hayden, and we'll talk about Sam Harris later, both

00:23:36.300 duped by the fake news. Now I don't think that either of them seem to quite grok how strong

00:23:44.260 the news is, its persuasive ability. In other words, its ability to make you believe something

00:23:49.520 that absolutely couldn't be true. The news is good at that. I believe yesterday alone,

00:23:58.580 I believed two hoaxes until I got corrected. That's just yesterday. I fell for two.

00:24:06.300 Yesterday. That's just one day. And I fell for two hoaxes. Now they were on social media,

00:24:12.640 they weren't in the regular news. But it's so easy to fall for a hoax. Right? If you ever

00:24:18.760 see me mocking somebody for falling for a hoax, you should correct me. Because you shouldn't

00:24:25.240 mock the person for falling for a hoax. You should be mad at the hoaxer. Because the reason

00:24:31.680 the hoaxes are a thing is that they work. Right? It's not always the fault of the person

00:24:36.560 who believed it. We can get better at not believing stuff. But it's not really the fault of the

00:24:41.640 person who believed it. It's more the person who created the hoax. So we have this system

00:24:46.840 in which the people who are causing the problem are telling us that it's other people and we're

00:24:51.860 believing them. And the tell for that is that they won't ask the only question that matters.

00:24:58.900 The only question that matters, hey, Democrat, if you believe what you're saying about Republicans,

00:25:05.380 would you break all the rules, including an election rule, to stop them from power? And let me say

00:25:11.360 clearly that I would. I would. If I believed the fake news about Trump, I would break a law to stop

00:25:20.660 him. Wouldn't you? If you believed it? Now the difference between me and General Hayden and Sam

00:25:28.600 Harris, we'll talk about in a moment, is that I don't believe what they believe. But if I did,

00:25:34.140 I wouldn't act the way they would act. I would act pretty aggressively. So they have this weird

00:25:40.760 dichotomy where their actions and their words are not aligned. Or at least they're not willing to

00:25:46.280 admit it. Although I think Sam Harris came pretty close. We'll talk about that in a minute. All right.

00:25:54.360 I had something on the other side of this. Let's tie it all together.

00:26:00.260 Oh. So let's talk about Sam Harris, and then I'll give you my test for cognitive dissonance.

00:26:12.900 We'll work up to it. So here's a Jeff Giza tweet. He asked me on Twitter this question. How would you

00:26:20.360 rank the following forces based on their impact on today's political discord? All right. So which of

00:26:26.860 these things do you think is causing the most political division? Media distrust, social media

00:26:35.500 algorithms, foreign intel operations, perverse political incentives, specific corrupt political

00:26:43.600 actors, politicization of the Fed, federal bureaucracy, and economic shifts? Now, all of those have an

00:26:53.840 impact. But the main one is left off the list. The one that's left off the list is not media mistrust.

00:27:03.600 Our problem is not media mistrust. Our problem is the media. It's not that I don't trust them. It's that

00:27:12.900 they're not trustable. It's not my fault. Did I do something wrong by not trusting people who lie to me?

00:27:21.520 Well, how's that my fault? I feel like I'm doing it right. The not trusting people who have a track record of

00:27:28.320 lying to you feels like that's right in the sweet spot right there. So it's interesting how blind we can be to

00:27:36.520 what's happening. Because I don't mean to make fun of, you know, Jeff, because he's a smart observer. In fact, you should

00:27:44.220 follow him. He's a good follow on Twitter. It's just that no matter who you are, it's so easy to lose sight

00:27:50.820 that the media is actually just manipulating and hypnotizing us for their own benefit, not yours.

00:27:58.720 And it's just so easy to lose sight of it. Somehow it's the public is, you know, we're extremists and

00:28:04.340 we're not following the news and we're not doing our own research. It is not our problem. It might be our

00:28:10.880 problem to fix. But it's not, we didn't cause it. We're just being people. All right.

00:28:19.280 So in my opinion, the fake news is what makes us fight. And if you fix the fake news, extremism would

00:28:25.720 disappear. It would disappear. Have you ever, have you seen lately what the left thinks about me

00:28:33.340 personally? Have you seen any of my social traffic lately? Think about the things that people have

00:28:40.120 said about me. Almost, or maybe 100% of it is based on incorrect information. So there are really bad,

00:28:51.500 bad feelings about me. But I think zero of them actually know my opinion. They've heard it from

00:28:57.980 somebody else or heard it from somebody else. So basically, we're all suffering under insanely bad

00:29:03.000 information. And it's causing us to hate each other. Where does this bad information come from? Well, in my

00:29:10.320 case, a lot of it is on social media. But do you think the people on social media would be coming after me

00:29:17.980 every day, every day, if they did not believe fake news? Let me explain. If they knew what my actual

00:29:27.500 opinions were, they wouldn't have much problem with them. Or at least they'd, you know, disagree with

00:29:32.860 an assumption, but they wouldn't think I was, you know, Hitler myself. And I think that that's largely

00:29:38.040 true of all of us. I believe that if you put me in a room with the leftist lefty and the rightist

00:29:46.680 righty, you know, extremists on both sides, that I could find out what information we differed on

00:29:53.400 and probably bring them together. The leftist left and the rightist right. I believe if nobody else

00:30:01.580 were in the room and I was allowed to give them accurate information, I actually think I could get

00:30:08.000 them on the same page, no matter how left and no matter how right. Now, the exception would be if

00:30:14.180 they're just being crazy, right? If they have an interest and they're not in deep cognitive

00:30:21.240 dissonance, if they have an interest, I could do it. Now, what happens if somebody's in cognitive

00:30:28.080 dissonance? How do they know and how do you know? Well, I'm going to give you an example. So Sam Harris

00:30:35.620 was on the Triggerednometry podcast, which is a big, very good podcast. And he said directly

00:30:48.220 that Trump was such a menace and especially the Trump University was such an example of something

00:30:55.840 that was far worse than anything Biden is accused of. Not only worse than what Biden may have done for

00:31:03.560 sure, but even worse than what Biden is accused of, you know, accused of maybe some bad dealings with

00:31:12.000 Ukraine, for example. And in Sam Harris's view, the media suppressing the Hunter laptop story

00:31:23.400 to get Biden elected was legitimate. And he agrees that the news, faking the news to keep Trump out of

00:31:33.360 office, literally faking the news. It was justified because Trump is such a risk. What do you think of

00:31:42.240 that? Here's the problem. Did you just say to yourself, damn that Sam Harris, that freaking Sam

00:31:51.300 Harris, that guy, there's something wrong with that guy, right? Okay, I'm going to disagree with all of 0.99

00:31:57.120 you. Do you know what's wrong with Sam Harris? Nothing. Nothing. He's a victim of the news.

00:32:06.900 He's a victim of the news. He actually believes the news, or he believes some subset of the news that

00:32:12.240 got him to this point. So if you think the problem is with Sam Harris, again, you're being diverted.

00:32:17.360 The problem is the news. If the news told him the truth, I'm pretty sure his opinion would be

00:32:26.140 different. All right? So I do, I give him an A plus for intellectual honesty. And he's saying

00:32:36.180 basically, I'm okay with breaking the rules if you're stopping a mortal threat. I totally agree with

00:32:43.680 that. I would break a rule all day long to stop somebody from getting killed. Right? Now,

00:32:50.800 of course, you know, you got this slippery slope if everybody's, if everybody is breaking the rules,

00:32:55.860 blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that counts if you're talking about killing Hitler. Nobody thinks

00:33:01.440 that killing Hitler is a slippery slope, do they? Well, if you can kill Hitler, next thing you know, 1.00

00:33:06.700 you're going to be murdering toddlers. No, no. Special case. I think we can handle special cases 1.00

00:33:13.180 without worrying about the slippery slope every single time. So the real problem is, is Sam Harris

00:33:21.920 experiencing cognitive dissonance, or am I? And in this case, I'll be a proxy for many of you in the

00:33:29.720 audience. Am I, and you, experiencing cognitive dissonance about Trump? And is he maybe like the

00:33:39.180 Hiller that some are afraid of? Or is Sam Harris and people who would agree with him suffering?

00:33:46.340 Here's your test to find out. All right? Here's your test. Can you argue the other side?

00:33:56.700 That's it. Can you argue the other side? If you can take the other person's perspective and,

00:34:03.240 and argue it in a full-throated, balanced way, then you probably do not have cognitive dissonance.

00:34:12.260 If you can't do it, and you change the subject, or you start going off on the person, you probably do.

00:34:20.400 Right? So if I said to you, okay, and I'll just use Sam as my experiment. I'll say, all right, Sam,

00:34:28.520 you've made a claim that the Trump University thing is worse than anything Biden has done,

00:34:33.480 or is even accused of doing. I'm going to take your point of view, and I'm going to argue it.

00:34:40.180 All right?

00:34:41.680 Here's my argument. Trump did something with Trump University, which shows that he cannot be trusted.

00:34:48.720 And somebody who is, who would do something so blatant should never be president. And therefore,

00:34:55.380 that gives us cause to doubt anything else he ever does, because that example gives us a clear

00:35:01.660 pattern of his personality and his priorities. Did I do it? Did I take his point of view and argue it

00:35:12.520 in a way that shows I understand the argument? Now, I'm not saying you need to agree with the

00:35:19.500 argument. That's not the point. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just saying, can I take that

00:35:23.840 argument and argue it? Did I succeed? All right. Now, I had a problem with Trump University, too.

00:35:31.320 But remember what Trump promised us? Do you remember his promise? I'm no angel. I'm going to do for you

00:35:40.260 what I've been doing for myself, which is, you know, maybe break some rules and make stuff work.

00:35:46.660 That's what he said. And when I supported him, I thought, wow, he's going to be expensive. He's

00:35:53.560 going to break a whole bunch of stuff. But he might do some things that can't be done otherwise.

00:35:59.220 So I've always characterized Trump as being someone who can't do easy things, such as staying out of

00:36:05.280 trouble. But he can do some impossible things, such as the Abraham Accords and, you know, shaking hands

00:36:13.340 with Kim Jong-un until that problem basically went away. Right? So there's some things he can do that

00:36:19.360 just other people couldn't do. And that's what I was buying. I thought that's what I was buying. And I

00:36:24.360 thought it'd be expensive because I thought there would be some division in the country. And I thought

00:36:28.940 it'd be expensive. So I got what I thought I was buying. An imperfect person who had a set of skills

00:36:35.620 that were right for the times in some very specific ways. Now, do you think that Sam Harris could take

00:36:44.780 my argument and argue it back to me? I don't know. But that would be the test. If he could take my

00:36:52.940 argument and present it in a full throat, then I would say to him, okay, all right, well, that looks

00:36:59.060 like you've looked at all the facts and maybe our priorities are different. But, you know, I see where

00:37:04.140 you're coming from. But his current argument that the Trump University thing is worse than maybe

00:37:10.740 colluding with Ukraine or, you know, being victim of potentially blackmail of Ukraine or something

00:37:17.620 like that. That's, I mean, on its surface, it looks like cognitive dissonance to this audience, I'm sure.

00:37:26.420 But I don't think you can be sure that cognitive dissonance is not on your end. Can you? How do you

00:37:32.040 know it's not on your end? By definition, you don't know. I would propose this test and see if

00:37:39.700 you can do it. See if you can make an argument that agrees with Sam Harris, right? Even though you

00:37:46.480 don't believe it, see if you can make the argument. If he can, if you can, then maybe you're looking at

00:37:52.060 it objectively. If you can't, there's no chance you're being objective. No chance. Now, of course,

00:37:58.920 there are some people whose arguments are just so crazy you can't even make an argument on their side.

00:38:04.640 But I don't think that's the case with Sam. I think Sam shows you his work, and I can reproduce

00:38:11.720 it. Yeah, the character of this person is such. It's been demonstrated by these past things which

00:38:19.340 we have some confirmation of. Why would you trust such a person in such an important job? It's a

00:38:24.960 very easy argument to make. All right. So there's a good test for you. See if you can argue the other

00:38:35.100 side. And all this stuff about us being fake enemies. Now, here's, I think this is sort of

00:38:44.600 related to this. So I asked, I did a little Twitter poll, and I said that I'd predicted that

00:38:57.060 Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected. I predicted that in 2020. And I asked people if

00:39:04.060 they thought that that prediction had been realized. And 80% of the people who answered, who are

00:39:09.020 probably mostly right-leaning, said that indeed, it appears to them, Republicans are being hunted in

00:39:16.660 a variety of different ways from January 6th on. Now, Phil Bump, who I believe writes for Washington Post,

00:39:26.660 right? He wanted to mock me. And there were two tweets with two separate but related predictions.

00:39:40.700 One was that you'd be hunted, but the related tweet in the same thread said that there's a good chance

00:39:49.220 you would be dead in a year if Biden got elected. Now, the trouble is with a prediction like that,

00:39:57.300 there's a good chance. What do you interpret as a good chance of being dead? Go. If I, what is the

00:40:04.940 minimum percentage of the chance that you would say fits a good chance? Some would say 51. Some would

00:40:13.940 say 10. Some say 50, 25, 50, 50. Now, remember, this is a good chance of being dead. If you talk

00:40:23.280 about the chances of being dead, any percentage seems like too much, doesn't it? So in this context,

00:40:29.360 I was thinking more like 5 or 10% chance of being dead, you know, 2%, something like that.

00:40:35.600 And what did Biden do as soon as he got elected? It took a little longer than a year. But the next

00:40:42.520 thing you know, we're talking about nuclear war with Russia. That was all Biden. Biden actually

00:40:48.460 got us into a serious conversation about nuclear war with a nuclear superpower. Now, I don't think

00:40:54.480 it was that close. But it was close enough to talk about it. So when I say there was a good chance,

00:41:01.020 I was thinking 5%. You know, it would be ridiculous to think that you're most likely going to be dead 0.56

00:41:07.080 in a year. What is it about anybody on the left who would believe that I thought that? Would anybody

00:41:17.480 interpret it as I thought there was a greater than 50% chance that you individually would be dead

00:41:22.640 in a year because of who got elected? Who would believe that I would actually predict that?

00:41:28.000 But it's provocative enough to say that there's a good chance. 5%. Yeah. So, yeah. So, open borders,

00:41:40.660 fentanyl deaths. Yeah. Correct. But I was thinking in terms of civil war as well. So, Phil decides to be my

00:41:51.240 personal critic. And he's got an argument. He wants you to see. But to me, it looks like cognitive dissonance.

00:42:01.900 That's what it looks like.

00:42:05.400 And here's my guide for identifying an NPC. Now, I've been using the NPC thing as sort of a metaphor from...

00:42:15.240 Is that the right word? Is it a metaphor? For the simulation? That some people are just scenery.

00:42:22.900 And I don't mean that literally. I mean, it could be true literally, but I don't mean it literally.

00:42:28.400 What I mean is that there are a certain number of people who will only say the most obvious thing

00:42:32.880 that you say in a situation. For example, if I were to tweet, I believe that...

00:42:40.240 Let's say, I believe that we'll never make it to Venus or something. Whatever it is. Some science-y thing.

00:42:49.700 What is the most obvious thing that somebody would tweet?

00:42:53.600 The most obvious thing would be, oh, the Dilbert guy disagrees with science.

00:42:59.880 That'd be the most obvious thing, right?

00:43:01.440 So that would be an NPC kind of approach.

00:43:05.740 The other thing is a personal attack.

00:43:08.440 If somebody just says there's something wrong with you.

00:43:11.460 I mean, these are both personal attacks.

00:43:14.140 But it doesn't have to be a comic reference.

00:43:17.460 So if somebody says to Rob Ryder, let's say Rob Ryder does a tweet.

00:43:21.840 What is the most obvious thing that somebody's going to say if they disagree with his point of view?

00:43:26.680 They're going to say, oh, I guess that's why they called him Meathead when he played that character years ago.

00:43:33.900 It's the most obvious thing you would say.

00:43:36.580 How many people say the most obvious thing every time he tweets?

00:43:39.760 A lot.

00:43:41.120 Every time he tweets, people go into the comments and say,

00:43:45.020 well, I guess that's why they call him Meathead.

00:43:49.440 Now, the people who tweet that, are you unaware that it's the most obvious thing to say?

00:43:55.680 Because I don't know the answer to that.

00:43:58.020 Or are you just trying to be first with the most obvious thing?

00:44:02.480 I don't really know what's going through their minds.

00:44:05.820 The other is, if I say I have a technical problem, as I did today,

00:44:11.300 what's the most obvious thing to say if I specifically, me,

00:44:17.460 if I have a technical problem, what's the most obvious thing to say?

00:44:20.620 Well, reboot, yeah.

00:44:23.040 Boomer.

00:44:24.300 Yeah.

00:44:24.520 Oh, boomer, boomer, right.

00:44:27.860 Now, sometimes that might actually be the full explanation.

00:44:32.640 But it's also just the most obvious thing to say. 0.86

00:44:37.880 The other thing is people will imagine that you're thinking something dumb or wrong.

00:44:44.220 So if somebody says, you know, this policy is bad, somebody's going to say, well, what you really mean.

00:44:52.000 The most obvious thing is to doubt that they're thinking what they're saying.

00:44:56.420 Or how about the hypocrisy one?

00:44:57.500 Or how about the hypocrisy one? 0.64

00:44:59.760 If I say, you Republicans did a bad thing.

00:45:04.160 And somebody will always come into the comments and say some completely unrelated thing, well, the other team did that, too.

00:45:13.160 It's the most obvious thing.

00:45:15.980 Now, sometimes it's worth saying, oh, your team did it, too.

00:45:19.780 So, you know, there's value in that.

00:45:21.640 But it's also the most obvious thing you're going to say.

00:45:24.020 So don't always say the most obvious thing.

00:45:28.180 It makes you look like an NPC, even if you're not.

00:45:32.120 So I've been just tagging everybody who says the most obvious thing with an NPC, you know, hashtag NPC.

00:45:39.120 And let me tell you, it changes the conversation immediately.

00:45:42.820 When you tell somebody, can you try to avoid saying the most obvious thing, they don't know what to say.

00:45:49.700 Because they can't get beyond it.

00:45:51.660 But most people don't know how to get beyond the most obvious thing.

00:45:57.120 So it just shuts them down.

00:46:02.120 Now, if you're doing a TV show to entertain people in politics, then you always do the hypocrisy thing, the both sides, the whataboutism.

00:46:10.960 Because that's part of the entertainment.

00:46:12.180 But if you're making an honest argument and you think that what somebody did somewhere else at a different time in a different situation is relevant to this discussion, then you're just being political.

00:46:25.800 So I think that we've all become fake enemies.

00:46:33.740 Do you think that I couldn't get along with the leftiest lefty if they didn't know or if they'd never seen my social media?

00:46:42.900 Easily.

00:46:43.840 Easily.

00:46:45.480 Not any problem at all.

00:46:47.280 I mean, I live in California, Northern California.

00:46:51.620 I'm surrounded by the leftiest of the lefties.

00:46:54.860 And I have no problem with it at all.

00:46:57.660 Now, I'm not sure I get invited to as many places.

00:47:00.420 So they might have a problem with me.

00:47:02.500 But one-on-one, I never have any difficulty.

00:47:06.780 Do you?

00:47:07.080 Do you ever have any difficulty one-on-one with any American citizen?

00:47:12.480 I don't.

00:47:17.780 See, and the news has convinced us that we're at each other's necks.

00:47:23.120 The number of people I've seen suggest that we're close to an actual, you know, a violent civil war just blows my mind.

00:47:32.260 We could not be further from that.

00:47:34.540 Do you know how we're not at the cusp of a civil war?

00:47:38.740 Do you want me to prove it to you?

00:47:39.860 Just walk outside.

00:47:42.400 Say hi to the first person you see.

00:47:44.720 Do they want to kill you or do they want to say hi?

00:47:48.720 There's no anger out there at all about each other.

00:47:52.420 Not on an individual basis.

00:47:54.220 Like, we all have this generic anger about the other group.

00:47:57.800 But we don't have individual anger.

00:48:01.200 And we don't have a reason for it.

00:48:03.480 We are so far from being divided in reality.

00:48:07.080 We're only divided mentally because the news has made us divided.

00:48:11.440 Why does the news divide us?

00:48:13.940 For money.

00:48:15.560 They divide us for money.

00:48:17.200 And we go along with it.

00:48:18.700 Because we're entertained by it.

00:48:20.500 Largely.

00:48:24.900 You have to turn the hunger up.

00:48:26.440 I don't know what that means.

00:48:28.460 Oh, you have to turn the hunger up to see the revolution.

00:48:31.020 Is that what you're saying?

00:48:31.840 So if things went wrong, it would turn violent.

00:48:33.940 Now, do you know what would happen if the United States got hungrier?

00:48:37.980 We'd band together to feed each other.

00:48:40.680 That's what we do.

00:48:41.860 Do you know what Republicans would do if for some reason only Democrats were starving?

00:48:48.560 They would immediately form some kind of help to feed them.

00:48:52.680 And I hope it works the other way.

00:48:56.660 I'm a little less confident about it, but I think it works the other way.

00:49:01.080 Now, when it comes right down to it, we're going to take care of each other.

00:49:04.180 We always have, always will.

00:49:06.160 It's just the way it works.

00:49:07.720 And this whole division thing is entirely manufactured by the fake news.

00:49:13.780 And we're buying into it.

00:49:15.320 Don't buy into it.

00:49:17.160 You do not have to dislike anybody.

00:49:19.740 It's just not required.

00:49:20.900 You can just break free.

00:49:25.720 All right, let's see if I forgot anything I was going to talk about.

00:49:29.280 Oh, yeah.

00:49:30.660 This declassification center.

00:49:32.480 I believe I have the best question on this topic, and I have not seen it addressed.

00:49:37.720 And the best question on the topic of declassifying the Mar-a-Lago documents is,

00:49:44.140 can a president declassify things by his actions, meaning it's obvious that he meant it to be declassified?

00:49:51.900 And I think the answer is yes.

00:49:54.880 Now, I'm not the constitutional expert, but this is what I read today.

00:50:01.340 I didn't realize that both George W. Bush and Obama had both signed executive orders, which are still in force,

00:50:08.820 and it gave the presidents, whoever the president is, sweeping authority to declassify secrets.

00:50:17.200 And here's the important part.

00:50:19.260 Do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures that all other government officials do.

00:50:27.500 And I'm sorry, I took this off a website.

00:50:30.780 I meant to give it credit.

00:50:33.020 If somebody knows where I took that from, you probably read it, too.

00:50:36.620 Could you give credit to wherever this came from?

00:50:39.860 I think it was a good addition to the conversation, but it was on a right-leaning website somewhere.

00:50:46.820 Anyway.

00:50:47.040 In my opinion, if a president who has full, sweeping authority to declassify says,

00:50:58.200 take these boxes and put them in my residence, he's declassified them.

00:51:03.240 Who disagrees with me?

00:51:05.620 If the president, who doesn't have to follow any procedure,

00:51:08.940 says take these top-secret things and move them to this non-top-secret facility,

00:51:14.720 they're declassified.

00:51:17.040 Now, you could say you don't like that.

00:51:22.920 You could say you don't like it.

00:51:24.660 But how in the world are you going to get a court of 12 people to think that's not the case?

00:51:30.240 Do you think you could get 12 jurors who are going to say,

00:51:33.520 oh, no, that's not declassification?

00:51:36.500 Yes, the president can declassify any way he wants.

00:51:40.780 He doesn't have to use any specific words.

00:51:42.940 He doesn't have to write anything down, doesn't have to do a document, doesn't need to tell anybody.

00:51:49.700 He doesn't need to tell anybody.

00:51:52.820 He doesn't need to tell anybody.

00:51:55.980 There are no requirements on the president.

00:51:58.140 That's it.

00:52:00.800 So if you put me on the jury, I'm just going to say, I don't know.

00:52:04.640 I mean, you can't prove that he didn't declassify them.

00:52:08.080 And by his actions, it sure looks like he did.

00:52:11.520 And I would say that's the end of that case.

00:52:14.680 If you can't even know if they're classified or not, why are we even talking about it?

00:52:18.620 Now, keep in mind, when we talk about it in the news, you know, we're just people talking about it,

00:52:25.600 we can act like, you know, we have some certainty that we don't have.

00:52:29.720 Oh, definitely declassified or, oh, definitely wasn't.

00:52:33.660 But what if you're a jury?

00:52:36.320 The jury would have to be, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt,

00:52:40.620 certain that these had not been declassified.

00:52:42.920 How in the world would any jury be sure of that if the attorney says,

00:52:48.980 you know, he didn't need to follow any rules,

00:52:51.280 and by his actions, it's obvious he meant them to be declassified?

00:52:55.060 Would you agree that if somebody takes something out of a top-secret place

00:52:59.040 and intentionally puts it in a low-security place,

00:53:02.680 that they have changed the, you know, the de facto declassification?

00:53:09.200 You don't need to get all 12 to agree to that.

00:53:11.580 But there's no way you don't get nine of them to agree.

00:53:15.280 Am I wrong?

00:53:16.800 How in the world do you not get at least some of those 12 to say,

00:53:21.500 you know, that is enough of a gray area that I'm not going to convict somebody on that?

00:53:34.280 Let's see, I'm looking at this comment.

00:53:35.860 Or sets it anywhere about documents.

00:53:41.940 If he writes it anywhere about documents, or sets of documents,

00:53:44.620 they become immediately declassified.

00:53:47.740 Yeah.

00:53:48.360 So I don't know if he said something that would also qualify, but maybe he did.

00:53:52.560 I mean, suppose Trump had said, and this is not in evidence,

00:53:56.960 but suppose he had said to the GSA people who were packing up the boxes,

00:54:00.820 suppose they said, hey, this is top secret stuff, you know, we have to handle it differently.

00:54:06.540 And suppose Trump just said, ah, no, just put it in the boxes and send it to Mar-a-Lago.

00:54:13.020 That's declassification, right?

00:54:14.980 In my opinion, it would be.

00:54:17.220 So I think he's going to be fine on that.

00:54:19.320 I don't think there's any legal risk at all on that.

00:54:22.020 All right.

00:54:30.180 So even Newt Gingrich pointed out that Liz Cheney said, quote,

00:54:35.240 I will do whatever it takes to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office.

00:54:39.720 And Newt says, is it any wonder most of us think the January 6th committee is a Stalinist show trial?

00:54:46.440 She is so bitterly anti-Trump, how could she be trusted?

00:54:49.820 Now, again, Newt is doing a little mind reading.

00:54:55.180 You know, he's looking into her mind and seeing that she's bitterly anti-Trump.

00:54:58.780 But I feel like that's in evidence.

00:55:01.780 The anti-Trump part is clearly in evidence.

00:55:04.680 And the bitter part, it looks bitter to me.

00:55:08.760 I mean, I can't read her mind, but if anybody ever looked bitter,

00:55:12.520 that's about as bitter-looking as you could ever look.

00:55:17.140 All right.

00:55:19.820 So pretty sure I covered everything I want to cover.

00:55:23.280 Oh, one other thing.

00:55:25.680 So I submitted a comic to my syndication company this week,

00:55:31.200 and it was rejected for content.

00:55:36.020 And I had to rewrite it, and I believe the rewrite has been accepted.

00:55:46.420 So I completely changed the joke.

00:55:49.400 But if you belong to the Locals platform and you are a subscriber,

00:55:54.460 sometime later today you will see the comic that the rest of the world will not see

00:55:59.120 because it's too dangerous, apparently.

00:56:02.640 So you'll see the original version that's not yet published.

00:56:07.240 Well, it's, let's see, I think the date is September 25th when it would come out.

00:56:13.160 And you'll get to see the one that my editor said,

00:56:16.840 nope, nope, nope.

00:56:18.700 What was the topic?

00:56:24.160 The topic was Dilbert's company created a robot that looked too much like an attractive woman.

00:56:33.980 And it went from there.

00:56:37.360 So I had to rewrite that.

00:56:42.820 But it wasn't sexual.

00:56:44.980 It was not sexual.

00:56:51.360 Yeah.

00:56:51.920 Well, what it was supposed to be is a comment on the fact that we will have robots

00:57:00.800 that are more attractive than humans really soon.

00:57:05.240 Really soon.

00:57:06.340 And that that's going to be a civilization-threatening situation.

00:57:13.260 Because once you like your robot better than people,

00:57:16.720 and why wouldn't you?

00:57:18.040 Because keep in mind, your robot will eventually look more like an attractive human

00:57:24.520 than the person you're with.

00:57:27.860 Right?

00:57:28.200 If you pick a human, you'd be really lucky if you got like a super beautiful one

00:57:32.180 or super handsome.

00:57:33.940 But the robot's going to be super beautiful or super handsome

00:57:37.080 if they make it that way.

00:57:38.480 And it's very soon going to look exactly like, you know, an actual human.

00:57:44.040 So very soon.

00:57:45.260 And what happens if AI gets into the robot so it can have a conversation with you

00:57:52.320 just like AI can now?

00:57:55.040 And the AI will be interested in what you're interested in,

00:57:58.460 and it will show interest in you and caring about you.

00:58:02.040 That's better than humans.

00:58:04.780 We're right at the edge.

00:58:05.960 Right at the edge.

00:58:06.640 And we'll definitely go past it.

00:58:08.080 where the robot will just be a better company

00:58:11.140 and more rewarding to spend time with.

00:58:15.680 Yeah.

00:58:16.060 We're very close to that.

00:58:18.220 But anyway, that was my point.

00:58:20.200 But the risk was that women would... 1.00

00:58:23.780 Women might take it differently. 1.00

00:58:26.480 Now, I don't think my editor was wrong, by the way.

00:58:28.600 So I want to be clear.

00:58:31.480 I think my editor got this one right.

00:58:34.460 You know, the job of the editor is not just to, you know,

00:58:38.560 make sure that the editor stays out of trouble,

00:58:41.100 but to keep me out of trouble.

00:58:42.900 So part of their job is to keep me employed,

00:58:45.960 keep me from getting canceled.

00:58:47.580 And my editor's opinion, which I trust in this situation,

00:58:51.400 was that this would get me canceled.

00:58:52.740 So you'll get to see it on Locals.

00:58:57.500 All right.

00:59:00.120 Oh, talk about self-hypnosis 0.96

00:59:01.960 that makes you more horny for your own mate. 1.00

00:59:04.540 I did it, and she responded. 0.98

00:59:06.540 Interesting.

00:59:07.880 Well, we'll not talk about that today,

00:59:09.620 but that's a topic we'll revisit.

00:59:13.520 All right.

00:59:18.760 The golden age of walking on eggshells.

00:59:21.200 No, I think we are at the golden age.

00:59:24.380 I really think we are.

00:59:25.740 It never looks like it when you enter it.

00:59:27.980 It's going to look like it in retrospect.

00:59:33.280 All right.

00:59:36.480 Micro lesson for kids leaving for their freshman year of college.

00:59:39.820 Lesson for who?

00:59:40.380 The parents or the kids?

00:59:42.340 Not sure what you want on that.

00:59:50.760 Reparations.

00:59:52.180 Yeah, I do have a reparations comic coming,

00:59:54.980 and I think that's going to get...

00:59:56.580 I think my reparations comic is going to get stopped, too.

01:00:03.080 Now, I did tell you that I don't plan to retire.

01:00:05.920 I plan to get canceled.

01:00:07.760 Did I tell you that?

01:00:09.540 Because I thought about,

01:00:10.840 do I really want to just, like, fade away?

01:00:13.480 So I think I'm going to make Dilbert more and more dangerous

01:00:17.520 until I get canceled.

01:00:19.060 That's the way I want to go out.

01:00:20.100 I want to go out and cancel.

01:00:23.020 All right.

01:00:23.600 That's all for now.

01:00:25.020 I will talk to you tomorrow, YouTube.

01:00:29.520 And spot...

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - August 18, 2022

Episode 1839 Scott Adams： Sam Harris & ExCIA Chief General Hayden Make Public Confession About Trump

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript