Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2067 Scott Adams： MTG On 60 Minutes, Keith Olbermann Goes Racist, Bud Light, More

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization and also a highlight

00:00:08.580 of your life so far. Now, no matter how exciting your life has been, it could always be better.

00:00:14.480 And let me tell you how to take it up a notch. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass,

00:00:19.320 a tank or chalice or stine, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind,

00:00:23.420 filling with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the

00:00:29.200 dopamine. At the end of the day, I think it makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous

00:00:33.180 sip. It happens now. Go.

00:00:41.760 I'd like to add a new sponsor to the show. Dylan Mulvaney. Dylan, come on over here.

00:00:49.860 Okay, how many thought he was actually in the room? She, sorry. How many thought that Dylan,

00:00:55.780 she was in the room? You believed it for a moment, didn't you? Yeah. For a moment, you thought,

00:01:03.540 maybe it's possible. But no, no. And I apologize for the mispronoun, but I insist that in return

00:01:15.400 for my trying to use the right pronouns, when possible, that you forgive me when I use the

00:01:22.980 wrong ones accidentally. That's got to be the deal. That has to be the deal. I'll do my best.

00:01:30.980 But you got to give me a pass when I miss one.

00:01:35.980 All right. Speaking of Dylan Mulvaney, do you think it's true that Dylan is the spokesperson for Budweiser

00:01:44.720 Light? Because, as was just pointed out to me, I haven't seen Budweiser say anything about it.

00:01:56.000 Was it April Fool's?

00:02:00.720 Do we know for sure if it was April Fool's or real?

00:02:03.060 Because there's now, like, there's a boycott effort going on. So some say it's real, but others are saying

00:02:14.860 April Fool's. We actually don't know, do we? Isn't that interesting that we don't? Fox is reporting it real,

00:02:23.100 somebody says. But would they know? I mean, could they be wrong? So Budweiser, has Budweiser even confirmed

00:02:36.400 it? Has anybody seen Budweiser say, yes, this is our new advertising? Bud Light Partners. But I wonder

00:02:46.460 if the story was wrong. All right. I'm going to say there's a question mark next to the story,

00:02:53.920 but we're going to treat it like it's true. I mean, it's in the news.

00:03:00.500 Two signs of the time. Every now and then, I like to give you a signpost or two to tell you where

00:03:07.760 you're at in the long arc of human civilization. So here are two signs of the times. Number one,

00:03:15.800 a company sells a product that tastes like Clydesdale piss, causes auto accidents and

00:03:22.140 domestic abuse, and has as its main ingredient a slow-acting poison. So that's a sign of the

00:03:29.020 time, number one. Number two, the public calls for a boycott over their choice of a trans person

00:03:34.820 as a brand ambassador, because that's the real problem here. Yeah. The real problem is not that

00:03:41.040 the product tastes like piss and makes you drive your car off a cliff and beat up your spouse.

00:03:45.800 No, no. It's not a problem that it's a slow-acting poison that's destroying civilization itself. 0.89

00:03:52.820 The real problem, the real problem is their choice of brand ambassadors.

00:03:58.040 Just putting that out there. I have no comments. That's just two things that are true.

00:04:05.900 However, when you're going to pick a brand ambassador, there are lots of variables which

00:04:11.720 you must consider. Variable one, is this person going to help us sell our product?

00:04:18.620 And number two, is there anybody who would not buy your product just because of the way you

00:04:26.240 advertised it? And I would say that a very, very bad way to advertise would be to pick something that

00:04:35.280 you know will cause some people, maybe a lot of them, to not buy your product. That's like as hard as

00:04:42.640 you can fail in the advertising world. And while I'm sure that they would like to show themselves as a woke company,

00:04:51.040 I'm not sure they made the best advertising choice. It looked like a social choice, better than a business choice.

00:04:59.360 Because I would say the first rule of advertising is don't make an advertisement that says,

00:05:04.100 not only will I not buy your product because of that advertisement, but I'm going to organize

00:05:09.240 a boycott against you. You cannot fail harder than putting on a commercial that causes social media

00:05:18.540 to say, boycott. That's the worst you can do. There's nothing lower below that. Well, maybe put your

00:05:26.160 whole company out of business, but you could get there. However, there's one other problem that

00:05:33.200 cartoonists are highly qualified to judge. And that is, don't associate a brand ambassador if there

00:05:44.460 are too many wordplay opportunities. Yeah. People don't think of that. It's like when you name your

00:05:51.100 child. You know, don't name your child something that's easy to make fun of. Am I right? Yeah.

00:05:58.660 Yeah. So you have something you have to think about. How will people make fun of it? But as

00:06:07.640 ultra mega Laurie says on Twitter, no thanks to Tranheiser Bush. Tranheiser Bush. See, there's your

00:06:20.840 first wordplay. They should have seen that coming. They should have, okay. Should have seen it coming.

00:06:28.660 Now, this is why they need to hire a cartoonist. They should say, Scott, we're thinking of the

00:06:35.000 following, you know, promotional campaign. Do you see any problem with it? And I'd be like,

00:06:42.780 okay, so what's your slogan? King of beers. King of beers. I'm seeing a problem here.

00:06:52.960 Seeing a problem here already. Because somebody is going to take beers and replace the B with a Q

00:06:59.940 because they're assholes and it's going to be the king of, that's no good. So I'd say, no, no. You 0.99

00:07:06.080 don't want to open up this opportunity for bigotry. And then I'd say, all right, so you want to put the

00:07:12.620 face of the new brand investor on the can itself. Somebody's going to say Tran on a can. Somebody's

00:07:21.320 going to say Tran on a can. That's what you have to watch for. And sure enough, they are. Now, as a

00:07:29.240 cartoonist, I would have seen all of these coming. And I would have, you know, and I would have even

00:07:35.140 seen some of the, let's say, darker ones that you've suggested in the comments. Yes, I would have

00:07:40.620 thought of those two. I wouldn't mention them. I wouldn't say them. But there we are. And I'm not

00:07:48.820 sure that you should call the product Bud because Bud seems like sort of male oriented. I don't know.

00:08:00.240 So that's the exciting story there. So John Fetterman's out of the hospital and talking about

00:08:06.660 his depression. And apparently he says he's been treated successfully. So his depression

00:08:13.320 is either minimized or gone or something. But here's a question I have for you. Correct me

00:08:23.320 if I'm wrong. But if somebody is treated for depression and they're a senator, wouldn't you

00:08:31.240 want to know if their brain has been modified by an antidepressant? Is that something that the

00:08:37.600 public should not be aware of? Because here's my take. It's just purely scientific. This is not based

00:08:43.900 on politics. There's no politics in this comment. Wouldn't matter who it was. If I voted for somebody

00:08:51.340 who was not on antidepressants, I would say, well, that's who I voted for. You know, they presented

00:08:57.620 themselves a certain way. I judged that. And then I voted for it. And then they go on antidepressants.

00:09:05.100 In my opinion, that's a personality altering action. And if the personality is a big part

00:09:13.580 of what you're voting for, because it's the personality that tells you how they'll act in

00:09:18.660 the next situation, right? You don't care what they've done so far. You care what they'll

00:09:24.280 do next. That's all you're voting for. You're not voting for the past. And the biggest factor

00:09:30.200 on how people will act is how they've acted before. And if the way they've acted before

00:09:36.920 has been erased because it's now a new brain, right? The brain plus an important modifying chemical

00:09:45.800 is kind of a new brain. And I would say that the history of the old brain is now erased

00:09:51.560 because you can't be sure that they would act the same way they would have had they been

00:09:57.000 depressed. Now, I don't think it means that they would act worse. Let me be clear about

00:10:01.640 that. It could be that having a depressed candidate is way worse than having somebody who's been

00:10:08.660 treated for it. It might be way worse. So I'm not saying one is worse or better. I'm saying

00:10:14.040 it's such a big, big variable. Yeah, don't worry. We took your senator who's voting on whether we go to

00:10:22.280 war or not, and we modified the senator's brain. But don't worry about it. What? Can I have some

00:10:31.320 details about how you modified the brain of the person who will vote on the question of whether

00:10:36.600 I live or die? Nah, personal. It's personal. Wait, how personal is that? This is the brain that is

00:10:46.600 deciding if I live or die, you know, collectively. Ah, it's none of your business. Does anybody else see

00:10:55.640 that this is a problem? I feel like that should be disclosed. I feel like if somebody goes on

00:11:02.840 a brain-modifying drug, the polling should know. I mean, only for your top politicians. I mean,

00:11:11.560 I might care less if it's a mayor of a city or a state legislator or something. But if you're in

00:11:16.680 the federal government, you're a senator or a president, yeah, I think we ought to know. If a

00:11:22.680 president went on an antidepressant, you don't think that would be news? I mean, useful news,

00:11:29.480 news you could act on, news that would change your vote? Maybe. It might make you support them more.

00:11:36.200 But it would change your vote for some people. It would change the vote.

00:11:42.920 Anyway, here's an update on my mascot. As you know, Keith Olbermann has been my mascot for years,

00:11:50.600 and it's been very entertaining, and he's done a great job. If I'm being honest, he's done a great

00:11:56.440 job as my mascot. But today, he's been called out for being a racist. They didn't say sexist,

00:12:02.520 but I think that's implied. And what he did was he criticized a young woman who was a college

00:12:11.400 basketball player, and she did something mocking an opponent on the other team, and he called her 1.00

00:12:17.960 a black woman for being an idiot. Well, let me tell you, if you criticize a black woman for doing 1.00

00:12:27.560 something unprofessional or unsportsmanlike, in my mascot's opinion, you will be called a racist. 0.96

00:12:35.400 You should be called also a sexist, but I think they forgot that part. And so I saw a tweet by

00:12:40.520 Ashley Bell. Ashley is, if you go by the profile picture, would be a black male, who said,

00:12:49.080 calling a young, educated black woman an idiot for mimicking her opponent is more than unfortunate. 1.00

00:12:56.040 There's a learning moment for you here if you choose to take it. The media of which you belong 1.00

00:13:01.240 can help end these stereotypes or push to perpetuate them.

00:13:08.440 So there you have it. Using the standard, which I believe is now the standard we all accept,

00:13:16.680 if somebody who is black and female does something that you don't like and you call out the activity,

00:13:24.280 just the activity, just the mocking part, then you are guilty of being obviously a racist. And I think 0.95

00:13:31.960 it goes without saying, a horrible sexist. A horrible sexist. And so it saddens me to say this. 1.00

00:13:42.680 I have to cancel Keith Olbermann as my mascot, because I don't want to be associated with this blatant racism

00:13:50.200 and sexism for having one time said that somebody's hand motions were inappropriate.

00:13:56.760 If that's not racist, I don't know what is. Can we agree? Would you agree that if somebody makes a hand

00:14:05.000 motion that you disagree with, that mocks an opponent and you criticize them, but the person you criticize

00:14:12.760 is black? That's racist. That's racist. All right. Let's play by the rules. I don't make the rules. I 0.97

00:14:23.560 just play by them. So this racist, sexist piece of crap, who used to be my respected mascot. I'm canceling 1.00

00:14:33.320 him. And so I need a new mascot now. And you know, because it's social media, people act badly.

00:14:43.320 And this is terrible. But there's a link to a story about Keith Olbermann being very bad in bed.

00:14:50.600 And I'm not claiming it's true. It's just lots of reports. Lots and lots of reports.

00:14:59.800 So I have an idea about ending the war in Ukraine.

00:15:05.400 If anybody like it. Now, remember, war is often absurd.

00:15:10.360 You know, you could trace back the historical reasons why a war started. But once it gets going,

00:15:18.440 there's something that's purely absurd about it after a while, isn't there? Like, typically.

00:15:23.240 And the Ukraine, Russia thing is probably more absurd than most things. Number one, we don't really

00:15:34.600 have a good reason to be fighting. Oh, there's reasons. I could list them. You know, you don't

00:15:40.520 need to remind me what they are. I could list them. But they don't feel strong enough, do they?

00:15:45.640 Okay? Does anybody else have that feeling? It's like, okay. I get it. I understand what happened.

00:15:53.400 I understand why that caused what happened. And then that caused what else happened. I get it.

00:15:58.760 But it doesn't feel like a good enough reason. It just feels a little bit absurd. And so I'm going to

00:16:06.440 suggest, yeah, you don't have to tell me the reasons. You don't need to remind me of the reasons. I'm

00:16:12.200 aware of them. I just feel like, collectively, they're not strong enough. Like, clearly, there was a better

00:16:19.400 way to handle this. Would you agree? Would you agree there was a better way to handle it on both sides?

00:16:24.440 That either side could have made it go away by acting differently? I think so. Some would say,

00:16:32.600 no, you disagree. All right. But whether or not you disagree that it's absurd, I give you my

00:16:39.880 solution. Are you ready? So you know, there's been fighting over this Ukrainian city of Bakhmut.

00:16:48.440 Bakhmut. And the Russians say they control it legally. Well, we're legally in control. 0.94

00:16:56.120 The Ukrainians say, well, that's nice that you're legally in control. But are you aware that our army

00:17:03.000 is still there? Are you aware that our army is still there? And I guess the Ukrainians still control 1.00

00:17:10.600 some portion of Bakhmut. And the Purgosian, the head of Wagner Group, tried to do a photo shoot,

00:17:19.400 you know, photo opportunity, where he was shown raising a flag to show that they controlled it.

00:17:26.120 And the Ukrainians mocked them. He said, you're raising a flag over rubble.

00:17:32.200 What? You got some rubble? And we're still here, by the way. Not only do you only control some rubble,

00:17:38.520 but you didn't even get rid of the Ukrainian army yet. That's hardly a win.

00:17:43.400 But here's my suggestion. It looks like Bakhmut is where they're bleeding each other. 0.97

00:17:49.240 So the Russians are getting, you know, blood of men and supplies and ammunition.

00:17:53.560 The Ukrainians are probably suffering in a similar way. I don't know who has more of what,

00:17:57.480 it's hard to tell. But here is my suggestion for ending the war in the most humane way. You ready?

00:18:08.840 Bakhmut is already thoroughly destroyed. There's just nothing left. It's just rubble.

00:18:15.320 They seem to want to both fight over that rubble. The Ukrainians definitely want to control that 1.00

00:18:21.000 rubble. The Russians, they want that rubble more than anybody. Here's my suggestion. 1.00

00:18:25.720 Decide the entire war on the battle for Bakhmut. Just decide. All right, we'll do it here. Whoever wins in

00:18:36.280 Bakhmut, you get to keep, you know, the parts you've already captured. And we'll just call peace right

00:18:43.800 there. If Ukraine wins, we'll take Crimea back. And we'll, you know, all the disputed regions will 0.88

00:18:51.080 take back. If Russia wins, they get to keep all the regions that they've already conquered. But the 0.68

00:18:56.120 only place you'll fight is in Bakhmut, because it's already destroyed. It's basically, it's like one 0.99

00:19:02.760 battlefield that no innocents will be killed. So here's the argument. Unless the way you want to

00:19:10.440 win the war is by attacking civilians, which the Russians have done. They've attacked, well, 0.99

00:19:17.400 they've, they've attacked more of the infrastructure, which directly affects the civilians. So,

00:19:23.880 oh, no, you say my idea is silly. You say my idea is absurd. And it is. My idea is absurd. 0.91

00:19:32.040 And that's the point. That's the point. Imagine if we, imagine if that suggestion were raised. It won't

00:19:39.480 happen. But imagine if that became like a headline. Why don't you just fight it out in Bakhmut, winner

00:19:44.760 take all? Just fight it out there. Because here's the thinking. Whoever can win and control Bakhmut is 1.00

00:19:51.800 probably going to win the whole thing. Yes or no. Whoever, if you said we're just going to decide on

00:19:57.960 Bakhmut, whoever would win that probably would win the whole thing. Not guaranteed. Not guaranteed.

00:20:05.880 There's no guarantees of war. But probably. Why would you say no? Why would you say no? Because

00:20:14.440 Russia would go after the whole infrastructure and take down the whole country? That would be... See, 0.67

00:20:19.400 I think they would, but then they'd stretch their forces, right? So if Russia stretches their already

00:20:27.480 stretched forces, remember, they can't even capture Bakhmut. Bakhmut seems to be the limit of their power 0.91

00:20:35.240 right now. If they could capture more than that, I think you'd see a lot more action. It looks like

00:20:41.400 that's all they have. And so imagine an absurd solution to an absurd war, which is not crazy.

00:20:54.040 And it's not that the solution would work or that it would hold. What it would do is show,

00:21:00.040 hold on. You haven't heard the punchline yet. Hold on. If you say my idea is so stupid

00:21:09.080 that it should not be considered, then you're understanding the idea. You are understanding 1.00

00:21:15.080 the idea if you say that's absurd, it's stupid, all these reasons, it's dumb, it's never been done, 1.00

00:21:21.160 it's unprecedented, Putin would laugh. All of those things, true. That's why it's a good idea. 0.99

00:21:28.200 It's a persuasion idea. It's not a war idea. Here's why. If you actually engaged Russia with 0.77

00:21:35.400 this idea, it would show how absurd the war itself is. It would also highlight that there are no better

00:21:42.520 ideas. There are no better ideas. If the best idea is... I was going to swear, but I'm holding back.

00:21:51.320 If the best idea was frickin' stupid, but you also came to understand it as the best idea, 0.99

00:21:59.480 it would change how you thought about the whole war. And it would make it harder to push the war, 0.99

00:22:07.240 for Russia anyway. It would make them harder to push a war if the other side was suggesting

00:22:13.400 an absurd way to end it. Absurd. Believe it or not, it would help, because it would clarify the absurdity

00:22:22.600 of the whole enterprise. All right. It'll never happen. It's just a sort of a thought experiment.

00:22:31.000 So RFK Jr. says out loud that he's thinking about running for president.

00:22:36.600 And I gotta say, that's an interesting prospect. You know what would be good for America?

00:22:44.360 Just really good for America? Would be a strong Republican candidate running against RFK Jr.

00:22:52.600 instead of Biden. Because that would be an actual contest. And I don't think that RFK Jr. comes from

00:23:00.920 the crazy wing of the left. My guess is, I don't know, but my guess is he's closer to a realistic

00:23:08.600 center. But he also has this weird quality that he agrees with a lot of Republicans on vaccinations,

00:23:15.640 specifically the COVID stuff. And that won him a lot of fans. A lot of fans on the right,

00:23:22.200 just for that one take. I think he earned his place on the national stage. What do you think?

00:23:32.360 Whether or not you want to vote for him, separate question. But I think he earned his place.

00:23:37.080 What do you say? So I would give him a lot of respect for what he's done so far.

00:23:43.000 Interesting. Yeah, you don't have to say you'd vote for him. But wouldn't you prefer him over

00:23:50.040 Biden? Let me ask you that. Would you prefer RFK Jr. over Biden if that were your only choices?

00:23:58.360 Yeah, yes. Absolutely. Because the one thing that JFK Jr. signals very clearly is that he's not on the

00:24:06.840 take. If there's anybody who's more clearly signaled that he can't be bought, it's RFK Jr.

00:24:15.080 Nobody's ever signaled that as strongly as he does. I mean, he could be wrong about anything,

00:24:20.760 but he signals it really strongly that he can't be bought because of the vaccination stuff. If he

00:24:26.680 could be bought, he would have been bought. You don't think somebody tried? Of course they did.

00:24:31.240 Of course they did. Apparently he can't be bought, at least not on vaccinations. So this is a really

00:24:39.320 positive impact. Now let's talk about his voice. Here's an update you might not be aware of. But he did

00:24:49.240 have a procedure to help with his voice. And I've listened to his recent speeches, and it does seem to

00:24:59.400 have helped. It's not a complete fix. It might improve more, you know, as he gets used to whatever

00:25:05.480 the medical procedure was. So it might improve. It might improve. But it's serviceable. You know,

00:25:17.160 it works now. He can say things. You can listen to him. He can communicate. And you can get used to it.

00:25:24.360 So I'm not sure. Do you know that RFK Jr., he thanked me personally for helping him get his

00:25:33.800 voice problem fixed? How many of you were aware of that? Because I've mentioned it a few times.

00:25:40.280 It's just, it's strange to be in my position, because you touch so many things that become

00:25:46.520 part of history, just sort of accidentally touching them. But the back story is I had a voice problem for

00:25:52.520 three and a half years where I couldn't speak. Something called a spasmodic dysphonia. I don't

00:25:57.000 know if that's why he has. But I had made some suggestions of surgeries he could get that might

00:26:02.680 help. He told me he looked into it, you know, just by DM. He told me he looked into those surgeries,

00:26:09.560 decided not to get the surgery that I got, which was surgery in the neck. That's what this scar is.

00:26:14.840 But he did a different procedure. I won't mention it because that's his business. But he did a

00:26:21.720 different procedure and got some benefits. And it did make a difference. So, isn't that weird how

00:26:30.280 that could have changed history? Such small little things. I was just trying to, you know, help somebody

00:26:37.880 who had a, maybe a similar problem. I wasn't sure. Just trying to help somebody. May have changed the world.

00:26:45.240 How weird that is. That is so weird that it could have changed the world accidentally. All right.

00:26:54.600 How would you like to talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene appearing on 60 Minutes?

00:26:59.160 Well, if you haven't seen it, I haven't seen the whole interview. I'll probably go back and watch it.

00:27:04.360 But I'm going to play a clip in which Marjorie Taylor Greene is challenged by 60 Minutes Leslie Stahl

00:27:13.640 on the question of calling Democrats pedophiles. Oh, no. Imagine being on 60 Minutes and being,

00:27:22.840 like, trapped on that question. It's like, oh, what am I going to do now? I did say those things. Now I have

00:27:29.880 to explain why I said those outrageous things on 60 Minutes. What will I do? Well, let's see what

00:27:36.600 Marjorie Taylor Greene did. I think she says that are over the top like the Democrats are a party of

00:27:43.080 pedophiles. I would definitely say so. They support grooming children. They are not pedophiles. Why would 0.97

00:27:50.680 you say that Democrats? Democrats support even Joe Biden, the president himself supports children

00:27:58.200 being sexualized and having transgender surgeries. Sexualizing children is what pedophiles do to 1.00

00:28:03.320 children. Wow. Okay. And things she says that are over the top like the Democrats are a party of pedophiles. 1.00

00:28:15.080 Oh, no. Oh, no. Marjorie Taylor Greene just got invited into their house with a flamethrower. 0.98

00:28:39.080 She just set their furniture on fire. Okay. 1.00

00:28:58.680 I am such a fan right now. I'm such a fan. I was sort of on the fence. I was a little bit on

00:29:06.520 the fence about MTG. Oh, I was a little bit on the fence, but not anymore. Oh, that's so funny.

00:29:27.880 All right. Let me tell you what I'm laughing about. So if the case is not obvious, you may be laughing

00:29:32.840 at your own joke. So first we have to talk about her point. All right. So the point she made is if

00:29:48.360 the Democrats, including Joe Biden, are in favor of trans-related, let's say, activities with children,

00:29:58.840 that the trans topic, this would be Marjorie Taylor Greene's opinion. All right. So this is not my 0.85

00:30:05.800 opinion. There's no my opinion in this. I'm just explaining her opinion. So she's making the point

00:30:13.080 that the trans situation by its nature, if you put children into that environment, it's a sexualized 0.98

00:30:22.840 environment. And if you're intentionally putting children in a sexualized environment,

00:30:31.080 she's going to call you a pedophile or a groomer. Now, do you accept that as a logical argument?

00:30:40.040 Is that logical? Oh, a lot of people say yes. All right. That's why it's funny, because a lot of

00:30:45.640 people are going to say yes. So to Republicans who watched this, was it not your impression that she

00:30:54.600 just dunked on Leslie Stahl and that her answer was sort of perfect? I'm not saying true, not technically

00:31:04.680 true. I'm not saying that. But in a political sense, in a persuasion sense, yeah, it was perfect.

00:31:12.680 Now, the fact that she didn't back down, she didn't blink, she didn't hesitate, she didn't hum,

00:31:19.880 she didn't pause, she didn't say, uh, well, uh, uh, she didn't stammer. She just looked right in her

00:31:26.600 eyes and said, Democrats, including Joe Biden, are in favor of putting children into these trans

00:31:33.960 situations. That's a pedophile. It was kind of amazing. It was kind of, it was just sort of an amazing 0.98

00:31:41.620 moment. Now, here's the part that I've been laughing about all morning. I'm not sure if you

00:31:47.620 caught this. It's not why she said, and it's not just that Leslie Stahl did the eye roll, which we'll

00:31:54.580 talk about. It's that MTG, by going on such a large platform, and by going right into the belly of the

00:32:02.340 beast, going right into their living room with her, her fire, you know, her fire thrower,

00:32:07.780 flame thrower, you can't ignore it now. It can't be ignored. So before it was just something that

00:32:15.620 people said on social media, you know, she said it on social media, maybe in a speech, but you can

00:32:22.280 ignore it. Now 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes has created this as news. Before it was just stuff crazy people

00:32:32.440 are saying. Now it's news. And do you know what is the best part of this? For the rest of time,

00:32:40.840 Democrats are going to have to answer the question, are they pedophiles?

00:32:45.080 standing ovation. I don't like to give too many standing ovations because it cheapens them. But

00:32:59.800 Marjorie Taylor Greene just paid back Democrats for the fine people hoax. She just paid them back. 1.00

00:33:08.440 How sick are you if, for those of you who have ever been, let's say, Trump supporters, 0.92

00:33:16.600 how sick are you of having to defend whether you're a racist just because you're a Republican? 0.95

00:33:24.200 Are you tired of it? Are you sick of it? Do you wish you had something, something you could do that 0.88

00:33:31.720 with felt like payback? Well, you got it. And let me tell you, I have been completely against

00:33:40.920 calling Democrats pedophiles and groomers, completely against it. I'm completely in favor

00:33:49.240 with this argument, with MTG's argument. I would stick to that and say, hey,

00:33:55.320 I wouldn't want my children around you. That's it. Now, I'm not going to use the P word or the G word 1.00

00:34:04.680 if I'm tweeting. Because on social media, I think that's too far. I don't like using those words. And

00:34:11.080 I don't think it's good for your Twitter account either. You probably get suppressed if you use words

00:34:16.280 like that. So I'm not really in favor of using groomer or pedo. Here's what I suggest.

00:34:24.920 I ran a Twitter poll, highly unscientific, in which I asked my followers, who, of course,

00:34:32.760 lean right, even though I don't. Just to remind you, I'm more left-leaning. But my followers are

00:34:39.160 clearly conservative types, mostly. And I asked this question on Twitter.

00:34:47.640 Would you be okay with a Democrat babysitting your child?

00:34:54.520 75% said no. 25% were either maybe or yes.

00:35:01.080 That's the right question. That's the question that prevents you from looking absurd.

00:35:12.120 Because the suggestion is in the question. But there's more than that. This is good persuasion,

00:35:18.440 because it allows the user to imagine several interpretations. If I say I wouldn't let a Democrat

00:35:25.000 babysit my kid, your first thought might be, oh, because they might try to touch them or something.

00:35:33.320 Or your first thought might be, no, they're going to teach them woke stuff. Or no, they're going to

00:35:39.640 teach them that I'm a racist. The parents are racists. Because that actually happens. That's like a real 0.99

00:35:44.760 thing. But it allows people to think of all the ways that somebody could damage your kid.

00:35:51.240 It also brings it right into your house. If I say, hey, it looks like they're damaging people you don't

00:35:57.720 know. People you'll never meet, they might be damaging them. You might care. But you won't care

00:36:03.160 the way you will if you think it's your house. That you care about a lot. So if you imagine somebody

00:36:09.800 in your house, this is the persuasion part. You make it visual in the mind. Then you imagine your own

00:36:15.960 child. Even if you don't have one, you can imagine having one. And you put that Democrat in your mind

00:36:22.600 in the same room alone with your child. And you could think of a lot of things that could go wrong.

00:36:27.880 Couldn't you? You could think of a lot of things that could go wrong leaving your child with a Democrat.

00:36:34.840 Now, of course, does anybody mind if I do a special, just a little notice for the stupid people? 0.99

00:36:45.400 Because every now and then, this is like the smartest audience in the world. But every now 0.99

00:36:50.120 and then somebody will accidentally get over here and there'll be a stupid person watching. So this 1.00

00:36:55.960 will just be a message for the stupid people. And I'll try to talk it in stupid language. So the rest of 1.00

00:37:03.480 you just talk among yourselves. This will just be for the few stupid people who wandered in here. 1.00

00:37:09.560 When I say Democrats, I never mean every one of them. I never mean every one of them. 1.00

00:37:19.800 When I say something about a race, like white people, I do not mean every white people. I do not mean that. 0.81

00:37:27.240 If I say Elbonians like to play chess, I don't mean every Elbonian likes to play chess. I don't mean everyone. 0.98

00:37:36.280 So what would be not helpful would be for you to tweet at me, he thinks everyone

00:37:44.680 is dangerous to children. That's the end of my notice for the stupid people. 1.00

00:37:50.360 I will return to my normal persona for the rest of you. 0.99

00:37:59.080 All right, here's what else is funny about the Marjorie Taylor Greene thing.

00:38:03.400 You saw the eye roll from Leslie Stahl. I'd play it again, but I'd rather do an impression of it myself.

00:38:11.640 So after Marjorie Taylor Greene gives a full-throated support of her opinion, Leslie Stahl does

00:38:23.320 that look.

00:38:27.480 What would be a reaction you would expect from somebody who

00:38:34.040 was a very experienced news person, a person who interviews people for a living,

00:38:40.600 and is known to ask difficult questions?

00:38:45.480 If somebody says something that you disagree with, and you've got decades of experience in

00:38:52.440 this exact situation, what would you expect? You know what I would have expected?

00:39:01.080 An argument against what she said.

00:39:05.480 That's what I would have expected. I would have expected some kind of counterclaim.

00:39:09.720 Well, I see what you're saying, but have you considered x?

00:39:13.720 Or, I hear what you're saying, but how does that make sense with this variable?

00:39:20.120 Or, could you explain that more, because what I thought I heard was this?

00:39:25.720 Wouldn't you expect something like that? But instead it was...

00:39:34.520 What would you call that reaction? Is there a word for that reaction?

00:39:39.800 Is there a description of it?

00:39:44.920 Cognitive dissonance. It's cognitive dissonance. It's not just one of the tells.

00:39:53.080 It's the big one.

00:39:53.880 It's the big one. That was the most obvious signal for her brain was broken that I've ever seen in

00:40:04.760 my life. Here's how I interpreted it. Now, I'm not a mind reader, right? So if I talk about what

00:40:10.680 Leslie Stahl is maybe thinking, can I do a little... I have to pause again. There might still be some stupid

00:40:18.840 people watching. Anyway, now I'm not going to do that. 1.00

00:40:26.840 So I think that was a tell for cognitive dissonance, and here's why. I think that Leslie Stahl recognized

00:40:38.040 some connecting logic in what Marjorie Taylor Greene was saying, and did not want to get involved in it.

00:40:45.080 She didn't want to ask more questions, because she definitely didn't want to hear the answers.

00:40:51.320 Know what I mean? Because if she had gone at it factually,

00:40:56.440 to say, all right, explain that. Here's why you're wrong. Do you know what it would have been?

00:41:01.800 It would have been more of Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about the sexualization of children in the 0.98

00:41:09.560 trans, let's say, arena. And Leslie Stahl wouldn't have had a fucking thing to say about that. 1.00

00:41:19.320 Right? She would have been trapped. I think she knew she was trapped. 0.99

00:41:24.120 I think Marjorie Taylor Greene led her into a narrow ravine. And once she got into that narrow ravine,

00:41:32.440 and she looked up and saw all the snipers, she thought, oh, fuck. 0.99

00:41:38.120 That's what it looked like to me. Now, of course, we're all reading our own experience into it, 0.99

00:41:46.120 right? So it's possible that the only thing she was thinking is, you crazy, 0.99

00:41:50.600 you crazy biatch. And I'm sure the Democrats will interpret it as her just scoffing and dismissing 1.00

00:41:58.840 her. But to me, that scoffing and dismissing was because she couldn't handle the topic.

00:42:04.520 There was only one person in the room who was capable of just even discussing the topic.

00:42:11.480 And it wasn't Leslie Stahl. She took a pass. She bowed out. She's like, I'm out of the room. I'm out.

00:42:19.560 Yeah, no, that was a complete win for MTG. So in summary, I would not call the Dems,

00:42:26.040 pedos and groomers. I would just say, I wouldn't let them babysit my children.

00:42:31.560 And I tried that out with a critic of mine. Some critic came at me this morning for something.

00:42:39.800 And I just replied, I wouldn't want you babysitting my children.

00:42:45.480 That's usually the end of the conversation. And by the way, I'm quite serious about this.

00:42:53.000 I wouldn't want, given the brokenness of the woke philosophy, I wouldn't want a child of mine to be

00:43:03.240 around it. I would consider that poison for their success. Because the woke philosophy is a backwards 1.00

00:43:11.160 looking, victim blaming, bullshit, useless thing that will someday go away. Whereas I would rather 1.00

00:43:20.200 let my child be taught how to succeed, you know, how to, how to, you know, make it work even though

00:43:28.520 there's adversity, you know, how to push through problems, how to be an optimist. That's what I want

00:43:35.560 them to learn. I don't want to learn that they're racist because they're white. I don't want to learn 0.99

00:43:40.600 that they're pieces of crap because they're, you know, they like Donald Trump or something. 1.00

00:43:46.440 So no, I legitimately, no joke, would not want a child to be around a Democrat who bought into the 1.00

00:43:56.200 entire wokeness campaign. But this brings us back to RFK Jr. I've never heard a thing he's ever said

00:44:06.000 that sounded extra woke. So I don't know where he stands on a lot of stuff. I guess it's an open

00:44:11.960 question. But he doesn't scare me at all. If, if RFK Jr. wanted to babysit my kid,

00:44:20.280 I'd be totally okay with that. Totally okay. Yeah. I mean, I would trust him. So it's not every

00:44:26.040 Democrat, but you get the point. All right. And this goes to my other framing that I'm liking as

00:44:37.240 days go by, that woke is a performance, not an opinion. Has anybody got to use that yet?

00:44:43.960 Where if somebody comes at them with a woke argument, you can say, yeah, that was a very

00:44:47.800 good performance. I don't, I don't take seriously any of the woke stuff. That's just performance.

00:44:53.160 But your performance was excellent. Good performance. I wouldn't even address the content of it.

00:45:00.200 I think we should stop addressing the content of those complaints. We should just say good performance.

00:45:07.720 Because here's where we're going wrong. We, we who don't like the over-wokeness. I like a little bit

00:45:14.200 of wokeness. I like calling people what they like to be called, for example. But if you go over-woke,

00:45:20.440 you're into crazy town. And if somebody's in crazy town and they're just performing, for example,

00:45:26.280 the person who at least presents themselves as a black man, who called Keith Olbermann a racist,

00:45:35.240 because he had a problem with what somebody did with a hand gesture, which had nothing to do with

00:45:40.040 race, of course. Do you think that person had a serious point about Keith Olbermann being a racist?

00:45:47.880 Do you think they even believed in their own mind that they had a good point? Because there was no race 0.99

00:45:53.960 involved in the story at all. It could not have been more race-free. It was the most race-uninterested 0.95

00:46:00.600 story there ever was. And still this guy came up with an argument that Keith Olbermann was a racist.

00:46:06.520 That's performance. You see that, right? That was not a real opinion. That was a performance

00:46:13.880 of somebody who wanted to, you know, show themselves in a certain way. So,

00:46:17.800 I strongly suggest that you at least test the performance frame. Instead of dealing with any

00:46:27.560 of the argument, none of it. Just don't deal with any of it. Just say, excellent performance.

00:46:31.800 Your wokeness score is a 9 and a 10. Good job. And just move on. Because you cannot take that

00:46:39.480 seriously as a topic. It just can't be taken seriously. Some of it, right? Some of it I like.

00:46:46.120 But if it's the absurd stuff, just congratulate them for the performance. Move on.

00:46:52.600 All right. Fun stuff on Twitter. I often talk about reality fitting a three-act play.

00:47:00.760 The first act is something bad usually happens. The second act is the fun and games part,

00:47:06.520 where you've worked through that initial bad part, but now you're doing some series of things which

00:47:13.080 are interesting and funny. That's what makes the movie. Later, there's a third act where somebody

00:47:18.040 gets into such terrible trouble you can't even imagine how they could get out. Twitter is in its

00:47:22.920 second act. The first act was Musk overpays for Twitter by 24 billion dollars or whatever it was.

00:47:32.520 So that's the first act. And then he finds out that under the hood, it's just twigs and beer and

00:47:43.000 wokeness. It's just like there's nothing good in there. It's just amazing it runs. He fires 75% of

00:47:51.240 the staff, makes the entire left hop and mad. So this is all the first act. This is just the upheaval.

00:48:01.560 So the first act is all the bad upheaval stuff is happening. Second act is happening now.

00:48:09.240 So Musk has gotten control of Twitter. He's gotten rid of, sounds like a lot of the troublemakers.

00:48:16.840 He's got a lean, you know, kind of lean machine. Oh yeah, it has some problems. Maybe some performance

00:48:24.600 hiccups, etc. But they get worked on. And he's got some new features. He's got a subscription model

00:48:31.000 that's looking promising, etc. So he's got sort of a handle on it. It's still bleeding cash.

00:48:36.040 But he's got a little handle on it. Here's the fun part. Twitter's context notes have started

00:48:44.520 reliably fact checking the news. Oh, it is game on. It is game on. Let me tell you just a few things that

00:48:56.200 have happened recently. So first of all, the New York Times refused to get verified,

00:49:03.560 which Musk, first of all, dunks on them, because they push their own subscription service so hard.

00:49:09.960 So he goes, well, that's highly hypocritical, given that their entire business model depends on

00:49:15.480 subscriptions, right? So if they're pushing their subscription, and they're complaining because

00:49:20.520 he has a subscription model. As if Twitter is not a gigantically useful business tool for the New York

00:49:29.240 Times. They must get a tremendous amount of traffic from Twitter. It's a business. And he wants to charge

00:49:35.320 them for the value they got from his business. And they're like, oh no. So that's the first thing.

00:49:42.600 So I enjoyed that, because it made the New York Times look like idiots, basically. Or at least 1.00

00:49:48.840 inconsistent. Then later, Musk tweets also about the New York Times. He goes, the real tragedy of

00:49:58.760 the New York Times is that their propaganda isn't even interesting. Their propaganda isn't even

00:50:07.400 interesting. I love the fact that now that he's got, you know, Twitter to have his back,

00:50:16.840 meaning that the context notes will be fact checking these entities. Yeah, they do look like propaganda

00:50:23.640 now. All right. But he also had this comment about Twitter itself. Elon Musk did. He said,

00:50:34.440 you could literally film a Walking Dead episode unedited in downtown San Francisco. This is where

00:50:40.840 San Francisco politics leads. And Twitter was exporting this self-destructive mind virus to the world.

00:50:49.000 With other, with some exceptions, other tech companies are still doing so.

00:50:52.280 Wow. Wow. Wow. That's about the most truthful and insightful tweet you're going to see.

00:51:06.840 Yes. Twitter was responsible for a mind virus that destroyed a city. That actually happened. Now,

00:51:15.640 not by itself, but if you said it was the biggest element of it, I wouldn't be surprised. It might

00:51:22.600 have been the biggest element of a mind virus. And I love that he sees this as a virus. The mind virus,

00:51:29.400 the wokeness and the craziness. It is a mind virus. That's exactly what it is. And so he

00:51:35.720 he took over the company and he removed the virus. Now, that is some baller billionaire

00:51:43.560 shit right there. That's some good stuff right there. 1.00

00:51:50.840 But the Reuters, I think it was Reuters who did a story that said that Tesla had failed to meet

00:51:57.720 some benchmark he had given for production of vehicles. And so the Reuters tweets the story that

00:52:05.720 Tesla fell short of its goal. A context note is immediately attached to it.

00:52:15.400 Yes. And and Elon Musk tweets, deceptive headline backfires on on Reuters. He puts it in quote,

00:52:22.920 deceptive headline backfires on Reuters, because it turns out it wasn't true. They had actually

00:52:28.840 exceeded their their goal. And Reuters did a headline saying they had missed it. It was

00:52:35.240 literally opposite of the truth. But on Twitter, instantly flagged and instantly corrected. And

00:52:43.000 even better yet, instantly publicly mocked by the guy who owns Twitter.

00:52:47.480 Can I be happier? I can't be I can't be happier than this. That's everything I wanted. Everything

00:52:59.240 I wanted was for Twitter to start fact checking the fake news. And they did. You know what I'm waiting

00:53:06.440 for? I'm waiting for I'm going to whisper this. OK, this is a Joe Biden whisper. I'm waiting for

00:53:15.160 Joe Biden to do a speech mentioning the fine people hoax again. Please. Just one more, Joe. Can

00:53:24.120 you give us one more? Fine people hoax. Now that Twitter is poised to call bullshit on that. I want

00:53:34.440 to see Twitter put a note the next time Biden has that, who says that, because I think they're ready

00:53:41.240 to do it. I think they might be poised. And it's going to be glorious. Same with the drinking bleach

00:53:47.880 hoax, right? It's going to be glorious. That's act. That's act two. What is act three? If I had to

00:53:56.040 guess, the government will try to close down Twitter somehow. I think the Democrats will try to

00:54:03.160 take Musk out of the game somehow. I think they'll fail. And then Musk will turn Twitter into what he's

00:54:10.920 wanted to turn it into, the app that does everything, which could be worth $250 billion,

00:54:18.680 which would change the news, get rid of the woke virus, and make him 10 times or maybe five times

00:54:27.800 his investment. That would be a good act three with an act four. All right. I feel vindicated

00:54:37.880 about an early opinion that this so-called restrict act was not about banning TikTok, which was the

00:54:44.600 whole point of it, but was a way for the government to get more power over more things in general.

00:54:49.800 And I called it down as I guess a Trojan horse. But I'm happy to see people who are smarter than me

00:55:00.760 by a lot on stuff like this. David Sachs is saying it's a bait and switch. Basically,

00:55:06.920 they're trying to make it illegal to use a VPN. If you're not technical, don't worry. It just means

00:55:14.200 that you can, what's the best way? A virtual private network is a, let's say it's an app you

00:55:19.800 could put on your phone or your device, and you are not as easily identifiable. It takes away your

00:55:29.560 identity. So the point is that you could use a VPN to get to a website that would be banned otherwise,

00:55:38.040 right? Because you'd be coming in as if you're from another country, for example. So let's say America 0.82

00:55:42.760 bans TikTok. If you used a VPN to pretend you were coming from, not from America, then presumably,

00:55:50.600 technically, you could get in. So this law tries to block the use of VPNs, at least in this context,

00:55:57.880 which is a big problem, right? This is not what we signed up for. When the public said,

00:56:04.600 and a lot of the public said, ban TikTok, they did not say ban our VPNs. The VPN is what you use to

00:56:11.000 protect yourself from the fucking government. This is exactly the worst thing that could happen. 1.00

00:56:17.400 It's the worst, worst thing that could happen. Instead of banning TikTok, they ban your fucking VPNs. 1.00

00:56:26.680 It couldn't be worse. If anybody votes for this, they have to be dead to you. Republican or Democrat, 1.00

00:56:33.640 anybody who votes for this monstrosity, this is beyond the pale. I don't usually get worked up

00:56:41.480 about little political stuff. Usually it's just news and it's fun. But this is too far. And the fact

00:56:48.840 that they're doing this right in front of us, they're not even, I mean, they're hoping that

00:56:53.960 we're dumb enough not to notice that it was never a TikTok ban. But the fact that they're trying to get

00:57:00.360 away with this through this back door, absolute scum. Yeah. You cannot respect this as a difference 1.00

00:57:09.720 of opinion. Would you agree? This is not about a difference of opinion. This is not politics.

00:57:17.240 This is not policy. This isn't anything. This is the government just fucking you.

00:57:23.880 There's no other way to look at this. Like, I get their little argument and blah, blah, blah, 1.00

00:57:28.280 might protect you in some way. I don't care. If you are a fucking law about banning VPNs,

00:57:35.720 let's call it that. Let's debate that. Right? Let's debate that. But if you're going to hide 0.99

00:57:42.520 this fucking thing in a TikTok ban that's not really a TikTok ban, and TikTok would probably 0.98

00:57:47.400 find a way around it anyway. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. It's terrible. Well, I saw the Machiavelli 0.99

00:58:00.680 account that often has deep fakes has helpfully created a well-labeled deep fake. So you can

00:58:08.760 tell it's a deep fake. It's labeled that. Of Mark Warner, one of the main authors of this abortion

00:58:16.040 bill. Well, it's not about abortion, but you know what I mean. And he's got Mark Warner basically

00:58:23.960 explaining his own bill in his own words as a deep fake, but, you know, being a clown about it. 0.96

00:58:30.040 Good job. And I think part of what Machiavelli is showing, well, I know for sure, because he says 0.83

00:58:37.240 it directly. He's trying to warn people what's coming. It's not about the meme. And he says it

00:58:43.320 directly. It's not about the meme. I'm showing you that you need to be afraid of this. You need to be

00:58:50.200 aware of it. You need to see it coming. We need to figure out how to deal with it, that the news is

00:58:55.720 going to be fakes. And I think that's very helpful. And it's very ballsy. It's so ballsy.

00:59:02.920 Because I think he's already been, you know, he's had some trouble on Twitter already. But this was

00:59:09.080 the perfect application of that. I like the application of having somebody who's doing

00:59:15.160 something sketchy have their deep fake explain it to you. That's strong. That is strong persuasion.

00:59:24.200 I like that. All right. But I'm also happy that the internet dads, as I like to call them,

00:59:32.040 are stepping up to call this out. All right. What else we got? Ladies and gentlemen,

00:59:43.160 that's about all I have. Is there any story I missed? Anything you wish I talked about?

00:59:47.320 I've been noticing that there are a lot of stories that don't make the front page of either Fox News or

00:59:54.920 CNN. And yet pundits talk about them, which is weird. That's different from before. It used to be

01:00:03.320 that everything, if it was a story at all of any substance, it would at least be on one of those

01:00:10.040 two sites. But there's a lot of stuff that's not on either site now, which is making me wonder

01:00:15.880 what's going on.

01:00:20.840 All right.

01:00:21.160 Have we ever seen the full list of what accounts on Twitter are allegedly boosted and which ones are,

01:00:32.680 well, I guess just the boosted list? Was that even real? Because it was a story of, I don't know,

01:00:38.120 15 or so accounts that like cat turd that apparently were boosted. I don't know if that story is real.

01:00:44.840 What do you think? Because if they had some of the list, why don't we have the whole list? Because

01:00:51.960 it's not that extensive. Maybe 30 people. I don't know. Will we see Epstein's client list? Probably not.

01:01:01.640 All right. There's no organic way that cat turd could be relevant. Agreed.

01:01:17.480 So I blocked cat turd. That's an account on Twitter. I blocked cat turd a long time ago. I

01:01:24.280 forget why, but I'm sure I had a good reason. But I've never understood why that account got so big.

01:01:30.920 To me, that was always a mystery because I didn't see value there.

01:01:34.440 You know, I understand why, you know, Jack Posabic has a big account. I understand why,

01:01:41.400 you know, Mike Cernovich has lots of followers. But I never understood cat turd.

01:01:47.480 Like that did look like there was something artificial going on there, but I didn't understand it.

01:01:52.600 Dutch farmers revolt is never discussed. Yeah, I haven't discussed that.

01:01:56.920 And I'm not current on it. But it looks like there might be some pushback that's working. I think that's the current situation.

01:02:09.240 Paris protests. Are the Paris protests being intentionally kept out of the news? I've seen those claims.

01:02:15.720 Oh, Finland, Finland decided to, or Finland's in NATO? Is that official yet? Finland's in NATO?

01:02:27.800 I'm not sure that matters too much.

01:02:29.160 Oh, here's a question I have for you. I've seen stories about James O'Keefe, a number of them, positive and negative, on Twitter.

01:02:39.480 But usually all I see is somebody referring to it. I have no idea what the story is.

01:02:45.960 There's some James O'Keefe story that is not in the news, because I looked for it.

01:02:53.240 And quick search on social media was people referring to it, but I couldn't find the actual allegation.

01:03:00.520 What is the allegation?

01:03:01.520 Has he done something?

01:03:08.000 Oh, Russell Brand was on Bill Maher last night? No, I didn't see that.

01:03:12.720 Oh, Finland voted their prime minister out?

01:03:16.060 But in addition, they joined NATO, right?

01:03:21.840 They voted their prime minister out for what reason?

01:03:25.040 The media is ignoring the Paul Towne story.

01:03:31.540 Is the media ignoring the Paul Towne story?

01:03:35.140 I am, because I never heard about Paul Towne.

01:03:38.100 If you say Paul Towne again, I'm going to block you.

01:03:42.260 So don't do that.

01:03:45.240 All right, I'll block you.

01:03:48.020 So we're not going to talk about Paul Towne,

01:03:50.780 and I'm not going to look into it, because you yelled it in caps too many times.

01:03:54.340 So that's your rule.

01:03:56.040 You get the opposite of what you yell in caps.

01:03:58.780 Goodbye.

01:04:02.700 Finland voted in a conservative, so that's why that's news.

01:04:06.800 Okay.

01:04:09.480 James Keefe knew about Mike Gill,

01:04:12.220 took the money illegal wiretaps FBI handler sponsored by Misraeli,

01:04:16.100 who is...

01:04:17.520 I don't understand any of that.

01:04:19.440 I was just reading a summary of the story.

01:04:23.060 There must be a large, complicated story,

01:04:26.440 but why have I not seen that anywhere?

01:04:29.560 All right, we'll get rid of all the Paul Towne references.

01:04:32.580 By the way, I was perfectly willing to look into

01:04:35.480 whatever was going on with Paul Towne,

01:04:38.000 but now I'm not going to do it.

01:04:40.840 All right.

01:04:42.300 Oh, there's lots of people asking for it.

01:04:44.760 Oh, there's lots of people who want me not to talk about it.

01:04:47.040 All right, I'm definitely not talking about it now.

01:04:48.620 So, nope.

01:04:51.520 There will be nothing about Paul Towne. 1.00

01:04:53.460 No, too many assholes. 1.00

01:04:55.100 Too many assholes. 1.00

01:04:56.860 And by the way, whatever Paul Towne is about, 1.00

01:04:59.100 I am not in favor of it.

01:05:00.720 So I'm against Paul Towne.

01:05:02.520 You've actually...

01:05:03.000 I don't even know what this story is.

01:05:04.540 Who is he?

01:05:05.780 I have no idea.

01:05:07.260 But...

01:05:08.200 But I'm opposed to whatever he is.

01:05:12.620 I'm opposed to Mike Towne.

01:05:14.620 Only because of what you said about him.

01:05:17.260 I don't know anything else.

01:05:19.520 Oh, Mike Towne?

01:05:20.840 Don't even know his name.

01:05:21.920 Don't care.

01:05:23.600 All right.

01:05:24.440 All right, I'm going to turn off YouTube

01:05:25.840 because you can't stop saying Paul Towne.

01:05:27.680 Bye for now.

01:05:28.220 Bye.

01:05:28.300 Bye.

01:05:28.340 Bye.

01:05:28.380 Bye.

01:05:28.420 Bye.

01:05:28.460 Bye.

01:05:28.480 Bye.

01:05:28.500 Bye.

01:05:28.520 Bye.

01:05:28.540 Bye.

01:05:28.560 Bye.

01:05:30.460 Bye.

01:05:30.480 Bye.

01:05:32.480 Bye.

01:05:32.500 Bye.

01:05:32.520 Bye.

01:05:32.540 Bye.

01:05:32.580 Bye.

01:05:34.580 Bye.

01:05:34.640 Bye.

01:05:36.580 Bye.

01:05:36.640 Bye.

01:05:38.580 Bye.

01:05:40.580 Bye.

01:05:40.640 Bye.

01:05:42.580 Bye.

01:05:42.640 Bye.

01:05:42.680 Bye.

01:05:42.700 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 03, 2023

Episode 2067 Scott Adams： MTG On 60 Minutes, Keith Olbermann Goes Racist, Bud Light, More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript