Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2092 Scott Adams： The ＂Dying Biden＂ Campaign Strategy, Tucker vs NYT, RFK Jr. vs ABC News

00:00:00.000 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the highlight of civilization so far.

00:00:11.020 Today is the, well, probably one of the most special days you've had since yesterday, at least.

00:00:17.760 And if you'd like to take that up to levels that nobody's ever, ever experienced in the history of civilization,

00:00:24.080 all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask.

00:00:30.220 A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:36.360 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:00:42.740 It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens now.

00:00:51.980 Ah. So good.

00:00:56.360 Well, there are all kinds of things happening. Some of them are good.

00:01:01.640 Should I start with the good news?

00:01:03.860 All right, here's some good news.

00:01:06.500 Greenpeace of Finland, so the Finland version of Greenpeace, is no longer going to protest nuclear power.

00:01:13.340 So Greenpeace in Finland, no longer against nuclear energy.

00:01:25.200 Is that maybe 30 years too late?

00:01:29.540 And I ask myself, is it a little bit embarrassing to be in Greenpeace?

00:01:34.080 Imagine you've been in Greenpeace and you've been fighting for decades to prevent nuclear power.

00:01:40.980 And you woke up one day and you realized that you were personally responsible for climate change.

00:01:46.480 Because the climate change problem, arguably even the war in Ukraine, is because of Greenpeace.

00:01:56.580 Is that too far?

00:01:58.260 Do you think there would be a war in Ukraine if we had abundant nuclear energy all over Europe?

00:02:04.240 I don't know. I think they'd be driving electric cars and laughing at Russia by now.

00:02:10.640 Seems to me.

00:02:13.060 Am I wrong that Greenpeace is responsible for climate change?

00:02:18.500 Is that an over-interpretation?

00:02:21.040 Because I think they were the primary group against nuclear power.

00:02:27.400 And being against nuclear power for the last several decades is exactly the reason that we don't have enough energy that's clean.

00:02:36.840 I mean, I think they're primarily responsible for climate change.

00:02:41.860 That's what it looks like to me.

00:02:43.160 Anyway, it must be awkward to wake up one day and realize the thing you've been fighting for to fix for 20 years, you had made much, much worse.

00:02:54.120 Not a little bit.

00:02:55.480 Much, much, much, much, much worse.

00:02:59.020 Good job there, Greenpeace.

00:03:02.360 Well, more good news.

00:03:03.980 Wall Street Journal is reporting there are now a few different technologies for removing these so-called forever chemicals from our water supply.

00:03:13.160 I guess it's really hard to filter out all the little microchemicals that last forever in our water supply.

00:03:19.520 Usually stuff from pollution, dumping.

00:03:23.280 But apparently they have at least two new technologies.

00:03:26.840 One has to do with high pressure and one has to do with some electrical process.

00:03:31.560 But neither of them are yet fully economical.

00:03:35.800 However, when you're talking about safe water, well, you're probably willing to pay a little to get that.

00:03:44.380 So I got a feeling that it will be economical because people would pay a very high price for clean water.

00:03:50.940 So that's good news.

00:03:52.560 There might be a weigh-in of our drinking chemicals all the time problem. 0.66

00:03:57.500 Not right away.

00:03:58.800 Not right away.

00:03:59.360 All right.

00:04:01.080 And now a demonstration of the wisdom of my audience.

00:04:05.560 Give me the answer before I ask the question.

00:04:08.920 That's right.

00:04:10.060 That's right.

00:04:11.280 That is the correct answer.

00:04:12.620 The people on the locals' platform are at.

00:04:14.860 YouTube is catching up.

00:04:16.020 The correct answer is 25%.

00:04:17.800 That is the correct answer.

00:04:19.800 Would you like to hear the question?

00:04:23.680 I don't know.

00:04:24.760 Maybe you'd like to hear the question.

00:04:26.220 You all got the answer right, which is amazing.

00:04:28.340 But what percentage of American high school students identify as LGBTQ?

00:04:38.700 25%.

00:04:39.580 Yep.

00:04:43.820 25%.

00:04:45.060 Which is a coincidence, really.

00:04:48.980 Because it's not like there's a years-long pattern of 25% being sort of an almost magical number.

00:04:59.340 It's not like that ever happened.

00:05:00.780 Nothing like that.

00:05:01.960 This is just a coincidence, people.

00:05:04.400 25%.

00:05:04.840 The fact that my entire audience could guess the answer before I ask the question doesn't mean anything.

00:05:11.540 Do not make any conclusions from that.

00:05:13.320 So, yeah, that was a CDC estimate, 25%.

00:05:18.940 Do you know what I think about that?

00:05:22.200 I hate to tell you this.

00:05:25.560 I'm going to give you the California opinion of that 25%.

00:05:29.620 Are you ready for this?

00:05:33.700 It's low.

00:05:35.800 It's way low.

00:05:38.100 Sorry.

00:05:40.820 And when I say it's low, here's what I'm talking about.

00:05:44.580 Well, I'm almost positive it's higher in California.

00:05:49.680 Almost positive.

00:05:51.560 Especially the bisexual part. 0.97

00:05:54.360 Because among female high school students, bisexuality is so normalized among the women that, I don't know, I think it's closer to half.

00:06:06.200 Probably something like half of the female students in California would say, you know, it just depends who I fall in love with. 1.00

00:06:15.000 It's actually, it's not the worst thing in the world, right?

00:06:19.300 If you think the world's falling apart or whatever.

00:06:22.040 The fact that there are a normal high school female, completely just average person, would answer the question this way. 1.00

00:06:32.580 Depends who I fall in love with.

00:06:36.200 I don't know.

00:06:36.720 Is that worse?

00:06:37.820 Is that a sign of, is that a sign of things getting worse or better?

00:06:42.620 It's a little unclear, isn't it?

00:06:44.780 I don't know.

00:06:46.440 On one hand, you have to, you have to appreciate the open-mindedness.

00:06:53.560 But could it be too far?

00:06:56.920 Could it be too far?

00:06:58.380 That's the question.

00:06:59.080 I think it's higher in California, and California tends to be predictive of where the country is going on these social trends.

00:07:09.060 Would you agree with that?

00:07:10.480 Would you agree that California's a few years ahead of at least the middle of the country?

00:07:17.380 You don't believe that?

00:07:18.400 I think there's plenty of precedent where things start in California or maybe New York and spread toward the middle.

00:07:27.880 No?

00:07:28.640 All right.

00:07:29.080 Well, I guess we, I guess we don't agree on that.

00:07:32.680 All right.

00:07:33.040 Moving on.

00:07:33.600 So do you think that's a TikTok thing?

00:07:41.580 How much of the 25% of high school students being LGBTQ do you think is literally just TikTok?

00:07:51.880 Do you think it could be measured?

00:07:54.700 Do you think if you could measure the kids who spend time on TikTok versus the kids who don't,

00:08:01.640 do you think if you asked the percentage of LGBTQ in both groups, you'd get the same number?

00:08:08.440 I doubt it.

00:08:10.300 I doubt it.

00:08:11.620 So we now have a very clean way, I think.

00:08:15.920 I mean, you wouldn't want to believe the first study you saw on it.

00:08:18.720 You'd want to see if it could be repeated in different forms.

00:08:22.380 But I'll bet we can now measure exactly how much TikTok changes the sexual preferences of American youth.

00:08:30.020 Am I wrong?

00:08:30.880 Do we not have now all the data we would need if somebody were to do that study?

00:08:36.140 The data is all available.

00:08:37.600 You just say, do you watch TikTok?

00:08:39.480 Do you identify as LGBTQ?

00:08:42.500 We're done.

00:08:43.680 So do you think you'll ever see that study?

00:08:46.860 Do you think anybody will do that very obvious, important study?

00:08:51.140 Very, very obvious, important study.

00:08:53.660 Nope.

00:08:54.560 Nope.

00:08:55.300 I'll bet you won't.

00:08:56.740 Do you know why?

00:08:57.360 Because whoever does that study will be banned for life from all polite company.

00:09:06.900 Because they will be...

00:09:09.320 If you found that TikTok was influencing people's sexual identification and preferences,

00:09:16.580 it would look like you're saying that those are not real.

00:09:23.600 Oh.

00:09:24.500 You know what I mean?

00:09:25.840 So if you said, yes, you know, the core...

00:09:28.780 There's a core of it that's real.

00:09:30.980 But then TikTok is causing this extra number of people who might have been in the gray area some way.

00:09:36.060 It's causing them to, you know, commit to something they might not have committed to.

00:09:42.280 Do you think that you could do that study and get it funded and then publish it and the mainstream media would say,

00:09:47.320 hey, look at this.

00:09:48.400 There's a bunch of people who think they're LGBTQ, but probably wouldn't think that at all unless they use TikTok.

00:09:56.180 Nope.

00:09:57.160 I don't believe there's any way to do that study.

00:09:59.360 Try to hold in your mind there's sort of a theme for today.

00:10:04.960 So here's today's theme.

00:10:07.080 It's sort of that slow-boiling frog situation.

00:10:10.860 That things get weird a little bit and you go, oh, that's weird.

00:10:15.440 But it's just a little bit.

00:10:17.360 It's not like you're going to spend your day thinking about it.

00:10:19.780 And then the next day it's twice as weird.

00:10:23.100 And you go, well, look at that.

00:10:24.620 It doubled.

00:10:25.480 But it was doubling from, you know, a little small number.

00:10:27.620 So it's still not that weird.

00:10:30.260 And then it gets a little bit weirder.

00:10:32.840 And we've reached a point where the weirdness is so extreme,

00:10:37.400 but we don't feel it or talk about it or act like it's extreme because we got used to it.

00:10:42.920 It just sort of snuck up on us a little bit at a time.

00:10:46.940 All right.

00:10:47.280 So the fact that TikTok is reprogramming the sexuality of Americans 0.96

00:10:52.780 and we're not doing anything about it, I mean, in all likelihood,

00:10:56.100 at the very least we should have studied it, right?

00:10:59.440 So I don't want to get ahead of the science, but I think it's obvious.

00:11:03.740 I mean, I don't really even need a study to know what's happening.

00:11:07.980 But I could be wrong.

00:11:09.100 I still want the study.

00:11:10.380 You know, maybe.

00:11:11.240 Maybe I'm wrong.

00:11:12.000 Never know.

00:11:12.400 But it just sort of snuck up on us, didn't it?

00:11:17.940 If this had just come out of nowhere, let's say TikTok had never existed,

00:11:22.660 and it just suddenly appeared, and at the same time,

00:11:26.480 all the polls, like, suddenly went to 25% LGBTQ in high school.

00:11:32.660 What if they both happened, like, suddenly at the same time?

00:11:35.540 Would we put up with it?

00:11:36.620 No, no.

00:11:39.580 If it happened suddenly, we'd say, my God, this is the worst thing in the world.

00:11:43.880 They're reprogramming the, like, the biological impulses of our humans.

00:11:49.100 They're going to stop reproducing.

00:11:52.080 We would have stopped it immediately.

00:11:53.960 But because TikTok sort of, you know, slowly caught on,

00:11:57.960 and then this other number, you know, kind of grew slowly to where it is,

00:12:02.600 we got used to it.

00:12:05.600 No problem.

00:12:06.780 Nothing to do here.

00:12:08.140 Nothing to see at all.

00:12:10.140 That's the theme for today.

00:12:11.560 You'll see more of it.

00:12:15.900 Rasmussen did a poll on the popularity of Tucker Carlson.

00:12:20.220 59% of U.S. likely U.S. voters have a favorable impression of him.

00:12:26.020 59%.

00:12:26.460 I'm going to ask you another question.

00:12:33.440 But before I ask it, I'd like you to give me the answer.

00:12:38.020 Let's see if you can do it twice in a row.

00:12:41.400 Oh, you did it again.

00:12:44.340 Amazing.

00:12:45.040 Yeah, the answer is 25%.

00:12:46.460 You haven't even heard the question.

00:12:48.580 That's twice.

00:12:49.940 Now, those of you who are new to this live stream, are you impressed?

00:12:52.820 They're actually guessing the answer precisely before they've heard the question.

00:13:00.520 And they're going to do it a second time in a row.

00:13:02.120 Watch this.

00:13:03.580 According to Rasmussen, what percent of the public have a very unfavorable impression of Tucker Carlson?

00:13:11.380 25%.

00:13:11.940 25%.

00:13:14.820 All right.

00:13:16.660 In another story.

00:13:19.040 By the way, I guess his video got over like 57 million.

00:13:25.780 How would you like to be a member of the mainstream press?

00:13:30.360 All right.

00:13:30.620 You're a member of the mainstream press.

00:13:32.600 And Tucker Carlson does a little, whatever, two-minute video in which he doesn't even make news.

00:13:39.320 There's nothing specific on it that would make news.

00:13:41.660 And he got over 50 million views because people are so interested in what Tucker Carlson has to say.

00:13:51.780 75 million hits?

00:13:53.880 Somebody says.

00:13:55.380 Maybe it's more by now.

00:13:57.040 But do you think mainstream media is a little bit worried about how popular he is?

00:14:06.140 I'd be worried.

00:14:07.140 So I still think he's going to do some kind of a debate-y kind of a format, but we'll see.

00:14:15.740 Here's some news in my life.

00:14:19.180 Yesterday, I registered to vote.

00:14:22.640 I know.

00:14:23.920 It's a pretty big thing, isn't it?

00:14:25.780 So I normally say that I don't vote because I don't want to be influenced by my team.

00:14:30.700 But events have caused me to register to vote.

00:14:34.680 So I'm a registered Democrat now.

00:14:38.520 Bet you didn't see that coming.

00:14:40.800 I'm also black, according to my self-identification.

00:14:45.280 But I'm a black Democrat now.

00:14:47.340 I registered yesterday.

00:14:48.460 Now, can you guess?

00:14:53.660 I know that the people on Locals, they already got a preview.

00:14:56.320 I did a Man Cave episode last night that's available only to subscribers.

00:15:02.540 And so they already know the answer.

00:15:04.360 But I want to see if YouTube can guess why I registered as Democrat.

00:15:10.320 Can you guess?

00:15:11.500 I know the Locals people. 0.92

00:15:12.960 Some of you know it.

00:15:14.260 Why did I register as Democrat?

00:15:15.980 Why did I register as Democrat?

00:15:18.460 Some say it's so I could vote in the primary and support JFK Jr.

00:15:25.480 That's one thing I might do.

00:15:28.100 That's a possible thing I would do.

00:15:29.960 But that's not the reason.

00:15:32.880 Fentanyl, no.

00:15:33.780 Not specifically.

00:15:35.440 My identification with a party is unrelated to who I would support for an office or what policies.

00:15:43.080 So my party identification is not related to a policy preference or a candidate preference.

00:15:50.040 Although it would give me the ability to maybe help give Biden some competition in the primaries.

00:15:56.080 But that's not the reason.

00:15:58.460 Is it because they hunt Republicans?

00:16:01.980 You're close.

00:16:02.860 So you don't get targeted?

00:16:05.960 Close.

00:16:06.520 I mean, that's part of it.

00:16:08.960 You don't want to be called a white supremacist?

00:16:11.280 Not quite.

00:16:12.860 That's not quite there.

00:16:14.500 I mean, I don't like that, but that's not quite the reason.

00:16:16.960 You're so close.

00:16:17.860 Let me tell you the reason.

00:16:20.540 It was only Democrats who decided that I'm a racist.

00:16:24.400 It wasn't Republicans.

00:16:25.520 So, since Democrats have decided that I'm a racist, I've decided to join their club so that all the racists are in the same place. 0.98

00:16:37.960 And the next time they talk about me, and they do a big story, and they say, this damn racist, and look at his political opinions, oh, he's a Democrat. 0.97

00:16:48.320 Every time they call me a racist, they'll have to publish that I'm a registered Democrat. 0.98

00:16:55.520 I thought it was funny.

00:16:58.420 And if it entertained me, that's good enough. 0.97

00:17:01.820 So, yes, if you call me a racist, I'm going to register Democrat, and I'm going to be a proud, proud racist Democrat.

00:17:11.780 I feel at home with my people this way. 0.82

00:17:15.340 All right.

00:17:16.140 And then I also started identifying as black again.

00:17:20.320 I used to.

00:17:21.160 But I'm identifying as black again, just in case there were ever any favoritism.

00:17:27.560 I just want to be well-situated.

00:17:29.960 Because sometimes they'll say, well, you know, maybe you should have been identifying this way for a long time.

00:17:36.640 Otherwise, we're not going to give you any benefits.

00:17:39.780 So I want to make sure I got a good track record.

00:17:42.040 All right.

00:17:46.120 Nikki Haley is saying out loud what everybody's thinking, that Biden likely won't make it to the end of his second term.

00:17:53.980 That he literally won't survive.

00:17:56.800 Peggy Noonan was writing something along the same lines today in the Wall Street Journal.

00:18:02.400 And, of course, other people.

00:18:04.120 Van Jones mentioned it on CNN, that really it's like voting for Kamala.

00:18:08.800 Now, you remember my theme?

00:18:11.980 My theme is that things started out weird, but because it was just a little weird, you let it go.

00:18:20.160 And then it just kept getting weirder until here we are.

00:18:23.600 All right.

00:18:23.840 So here's the progression.

00:18:26.260 We collectively, the United States, elected a very, very old president, which I thought was a little weird.

00:18:34.700 He's definitely older than the optimum age.

00:18:39.080 But it was a special case, and it was all about beating Trump, and blah, blah, blah.

00:18:45.700 All right.

00:18:46.380 So time goes by, and we got used to that weirdness, which was pretty weird.

00:18:50.960 Pretty weird that they would run somebody that old just to try to get that win. 0.73

00:18:55.060 But now we've actually reached the point where I can say this, and it's not a joke.

00:19:02.280 This is actually what's happening.

00:19:04.380 The Democrat strategy for winning is to run a guy who's going to die in office.

00:19:09.600 Now, if I'd said that on the first day of his, you know, first campaign, look, they got a long-term strategy that involves Joe Biden dying in office, you would have said, well, that's crazy, Scott.

00:19:25.340 But we're actually, literally, no hyperbole, their strategy is to run a guy they expect to die in office.

00:19:33.880 That's a real thing, and we're just, like, talking about it like it's ordinary.

00:19:41.400 And let's see, the Democrat strategy is what I'll call the die in Biden strategy.

00:19:48.720 So they went from the hide in Biden, because they needed to hide him because he was too embarrassing to be in public.

00:19:55.080 So they went from hide in Biden to die in Biden.

00:19:58.360 Do you know why we didn't care so much?

00:20:00.280 We, again, collectively, the voters of the country, they didn't care so much that Biden couldn't put two words together because they didn't see him.

00:20:09.660 They just hit him.

00:20:12.100 And now you're concerned that he's basically on the edge of death.

00:20:16.940 So they changed their strategy to, well, we're not going to say it out loud, but obviously he's going to die.

00:20:24.140 Obviously, you know, the odds are he's not going to make it all the way to the end.

00:20:28.340 So really, it's about Kamala.

00:20:31.300 And somehow, somehow we've normalized the idea that one team can run a guy who's going to die in office.

00:20:38.680 And here's the best part.

00:20:40.660 The guy that they expect to die in office, they also think has the best chance of beating Trump.

00:20:48.760 That was the best they could do.

00:20:50.340 So of all the 70, 80, 80, I guess 80 million Democratic voters, let's say 50 million of them were over the age that they could run for president. 0.74

00:21:03.160 So they had 50 million choices and they picked a guy who's a notorious liar, has strange international connections that look sketchy through Hunter Biden, and he will probably die in office.

00:21:18.900 And he's their champion. 0.92

00:21:21.440 That was the best they could do.

00:21:23.300 And how would you like to beat Trump and to know that the odds are he might beat you? 0.65

00:21:27.200 The dead guy. 0.99

00:21:30.500 You're going to get beaten by a dead guy. 0.59

00:21:32.680 And probably, now, one advantage that Biden would have is that if you're somebody who's definitely going to die in office, or people think that's the likely case, 0.79

00:21:44.560 there's one group that you're going to get a lot more support from, am I right?

00:21:48.820 People who are already dead.

00:21:50.340 Because people who are already dead, they're going to identify with this, you know, dead candidate thing.

00:21:56.040 So I think Biden's going to get all of the votes from the dead people.

00:22:00.000 Like usual.

00:22:03.040 I'm just joking.

00:22:05.100 Come on.

00:22:05.900 Come on.

00:22:06.440 I'm just joking with you.

00:22:08.440 Dumpy.

00:22:09.560 Yeah, dead people don't vote.

00:22:12.660 Much.

00:22:14.860 So it's the die in Biden strategy.

00:22:17.140 Let's see if we can make that a thing. 0.89

00:22:18.940 Die in Biden. 0.99

00:22:20.340 All right.

00:22:21.140 I told you the other day, and I think nearly 100% of you disagreed.

00:22:26.500 And now I have some people agreeing with me, so I'm going to circle back.

00:22:31.140 Here's what I said.

00:22:32.940 DeSantis picking a fight with Disney is bad politics for DeSantis.

00:22:39.000 And people disagreed because they knew the details.

00:22:43.500 Right?

00:22:43.640 If you knew the details, you'd say, wait a minute.

00:22:47.140 Disney did something they shouldn't have done.

00:22:49.340 You know, they got into politics.

00:22:51.660 DeSantis slapped him down.

00:22:53.640 I love it.

00:22:54.760 Right?

00:22:55.680 Don't you love that?

00:22:57.080 Disney went and woke DeSantis and tried to get into the business of the government.

00:23:02.060 And then DeSantis slapped him down.

00:23:04.820 You love that, don't you?

00:23:06.020 Now, that's what you would say if you were a Republican, and you knew the situation well, like you'd followed the story.

00:23:15.940 How many people do you think that fits?

00:23:18.780 I mean, do you really think that the public of the United States is following the DeSantis-Disney story?

00:23:27.500 Of all the stories in the country, do you really think?

00:23:31.360 25%.

00:23:31.920 I see you.

00:23:33.780 Do you really think that the non-news-watching public has any idea what that's about?

00:23:41.600 Of course not.

00:23:42.900 No, the only thing that they're going to hear is that DeSantis is mad at Disney, and vice versa.

00:23:47.780 What is more popular in this world, Disney or DeSantis?

00:23:53.820 No contest.

00:23:55.620 Disney is way more popular than DeSantis.

00:23:58.140 So the only thing that people are going to hear is that DeSantis, who should be the serious governor, doing serious things, has picked a fight with Mickey Mouse.

00:24:08.340 And he might be losing.

00:24:09.620 He's not even winning it at the moment, because they're suing him, and who knows what's going to happen.

00:24:14.740 So, and then it got worse.

00:24:17.060 Or it got worse.

00:24:18.940 He's in Israel right now.

00:24:21.740 So when people are saying, wait a minute, the reason we liked him is that he was doing his governor job really well.

00:24:31.240 So, you know, he just stuck to his knitting, so to speak.

00:24:34.760 And we like that.

00:24:35.540 He was just a good governor.

00:24:36.680 Well, what's he doing in Israel?

00:24:38.740 Now, allegedly, it's part of his, you know, international trade that, of course, governors do.

00:24:45.240 Do they?

00:24:45.720 Do they?

00:24:45.760 Do they?

00:24:48.040 Is he signing a lot of international deals where he's over there?

00:24:51.360 I don't think so.

00:24:52.760 To me, it looks like he's running for president, and he's spending time in Israel, while Florida is sitting there marinating in lack of leadership, while he's gone.

00:25:03.280 I mean, that's what it looks like.

00:25:04.520 So, to me, I thought there was a huge political disadvantage for DeSantis.

00:25:12.860 But almost all of you disagreed with me.

00:25:15.860 However, backing my side is that in The Hill, I think it was The Hill, that, quote,

00:25:24.920 Whispers are growing louder among Republicans, among Republicans, that DeSantis has miscalculated in his battle with Disney.

00:25:33.860 There are real dangers, they say, of his fight with the corporation becoming a distraction from his likely presidential campaign, and one that could make him, wait for it, one that could make him seem petty and vindictive rather than strong and decisive.

00:25:52.060 That's it. So, if it makes you feel any better, according to one report, the Republicans who know how things work are now completely agreeing with me that he's looking petty and vindictive rather than strong and decisive.

00:26:09.120 Now, what's the reality? Well, the reality is he was probably strong and decisive. Would you agree?

00:26:17.360 The reality is that he was strong and decisive. He pushed against somebody that people don't usually push against.

00:26:25.280 He was very decisive, and it was strong because, you know, it was a very clear and strong reaction.

00:26:32.560 So, those of you who are saying, but Scott, the truth is, it was strong and decisive. It was. I know that. That has nothing to do with my point.

00:26:45.940 If you're fighting with Mickey Mouse, you're fucking losing. That's my whole argument. If you're fighting with Mickey Mouse, you're losing. 0.99

00:26:54.920 Listen, don't give me your details. Don't tell me how strong he is. Don't tell me how right he is. Don't tell me how good it is for the system.

00:27:04.260 I agree with all of that. I completely agree with that. It's just that fighting with Mickey Mouse cannot win. It cannot win.

00:27:12.920 All right. Point eight. All right. As you know, I've been promoting the idea that I'd love to see a debate between RFK Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy.

00:27:28.520 Now, the reason I want to see it is that neither of them at the moment look like they're going to be the nominee,

00:27:34.540 but a lot of us think that they have the qualities we would look for in a president on either side

00:27:41.080 and maybe more qualities than the two people who are likely to be the nominees.

00:27:47.640 So, if you want to put a dent in the possibility that the likely nominees are the inevitable nominees,

00:27:55.640 we need a debate of the two people who are the, I would say, the most impressive possibilities for both sides.

00:28:08.700 Most impressive.

00:28:09.980 Now, remember, RFK Jr. has already, he got 19% in a recent poll,

00:28:14.820 which is a lot for somebody who just jumped in and people don't quite know him specifically.

00:28:20.600 They know his family name, of course.

00:28:21.960 Now, a lot of that I think is probably anti-Biden.

00:28:27.780 They just, somebody younger would be nice.

00:28:30.420 Yeah, it'll be 25% soon.

00:28:35.500 But when I tweeted about it, I got 1.3 million views so far this morning.

00:28:41.700 Now, for context, for me to tweet something that gets over a million views,

00:28:48.600 that means that people are really digging it.

00:28:50.920 That's a strong, strong signal that this is a popular idea.

00:28:56.100 Now, it doesn't need to be popular with everybody in the country,

00:28:59.180 but if you've got 1.3 million people willing to, you know, look at this tweet,

00:29:05.400 and a lot of people retweet it, et cetera,

00:29:07.500 there is a real strong desire for it.

00:29:11.380 Now, here's the fun part.

00:29:12.660 Normally, this would, you know, I think in a normal year this wouldn't be a practical idea

00:29:18.580 because people wouldn't want to upset the apple cart of who the top candidates are.

00:29:26.020 You know, the Republicans would say, oh, leave us alone, let, you know, let Trump be Trump.

00:29:30.300 And the Democrats would, in a normal year, would say, let Biden be Biden.

00:29:34.180 But because of the extraordinary situation about both of these candidates,

00:29:39.900 I think people would take seriously the, you know, the challenger debate.

00:29:44.520 Now, here's the other thing that's fun.

00:29:47.860 Both RFK Jr. and Vivek have a quality in common that I love.

00:29:54.780 And it's that they're willing to talk to people who disagree with them in the media.

00:30:01.040 So both of them will go on, you know, Vivek has been on CNN,

00:30:05.680 and RFK Jr. has been on Fox,

00:30:08.540 and they've both been on all kinds of podcasts that are all over the board.

00:30:12.760 So they're probably the only two people who would be in that position at the same time

00:30:19.220 who would actually be willing to talk to anybody who gave them the right platform.

00:30:24.180 You know, independent of a party.

00:30:27.060 That's a really, really strong characteristic or ethical stand for both of them, which I respect.

00:30:36.120 The other thing that's completely different about this cycle

00:30:39.460 is that podcasters are the primary movers of opinion.

00:30:44.680 I think that's true.

00:30:46.500 Would you agree?

00:30:48.100 Now, it could be that I'm too far into the bubble,

00:30:50.040 but I think that maybe it's not primary yet,

00:30:54.580 but it's a really, really big part.

00:30:56.540 It might still be 40, 60, with 60% being the major media.

00:31:01.280 But podcasters are, you know, a real legitimate power,

00:31:06.240 and many of them have huge audiences.

00:31:08.320 The Megyn Kellys, the Joe Rogans, the, you know, you can name a lot of them.

00:31:12.700 So it seems to me that given the popularity of the idea

00:31:17.200 and the fact that podcasters love big audiences

00:31:20.440 and both of the candidates would like more attention,

00:31:24.240 nothing would get more attention than the two of them debating.

00:31:27.580 Am I right?

00:31:28.380 If the two of them had a debate on just a well-established Dr. Drew would be good.

00:31:36.840 Lots of podcasts would be great for this.

00:31:41.580 You just, don't you think this would be good for both of them?

00:31:46.000 Because they're both battling their own party at the moment,

00:31:49.840 so they just have to look good to their own party.

00:31:55.000 That would be a real strong play.

00:31:56.400 So I don't think there's any way that RFK Jr. or Vivek could lose

00:32:01.260 by debating each other.

00:32:03.100 Because the way debates go is everybody just thinks that

00:32:05.960 the one, you know, the one from their party won.

00:32:08.940 So it's going to look like both of them won

00:32:10.900 to each of their own parties.

00:32:13.480 So they're not going to hurt, like they're both so clever

00:32:16.160 that they're not going to embarrass themselves in a debate.

00:32:18.860 It's going to look good for both of them.

00:32:22.180 And that's what they both need.

00:32:24.440 Yeah, sticks and dammer.

00:32:25.820 It'd be interesting, yeah.

00:32:29.300 All right.

00:32:29.840 So I think now we wait,

00:32:32.500 because I would be very, very surprised

00:32:35.220 if there are not already invitations out

00:32:37.820 from major podcasters who know it would be

00:32:41.000 the biggest audience they ever had.

00:32:42.980 If you're a podcaster,

00:32:44.360 and you're right for this,

00:32:46.320 to host that kind of debate,

00:32:48.500 you will never get a bigger audience

00:32:50.520 than that would bring you.

00:32:51.980 Am I right?

00:32:52.480 That would be the biggest audience that any podcaster ever had.

00:32:56.760 You know, maybe Joe Rogan's special case or something.

00:33:01.380 But there's no way that that wouldn't be anything

00:33:03.220 but a win for everybody involved.

00:33:05.040 So I think it's going to happen.

00:33:05.960 All right.

00:33:08.760 Speaking of RFK Jr.,

00:33:10.640 so he does an interview on ABC News,

00:33:14.080 and at the end of the interview,

00:33:15.700 I saw this in a Scott Moorfield tweet,

00:33:18.780 at the end,

00:33:19.380 ABC said they admitted

00:33:21.200 that they deleted or censored

00:33:25.500 extended portions related to discussions

00:33:28.180 around the COVID vaccine.

00:33:32.280 What?

00:33:34.160 They interviewed a candidate for president,

00:33:38.580 and then they decided

00:33:39.880 that a major part of what he said,

00:33:42.520 which is really pretty key to his entire existence,

00:33:46.540 that they would just delete it.

00:33:49.140 And then they told you they deleted it.

00:33:52.800 What?

00:33:53.980 Now, I think the answer is

00:33:55.700 because they believe it's misinformation.

00:33:59.580 That doesn't work anymore.

00:34:01.780 If he were just a pundit,

00:34:05.200 you could argue,

00:34:07.140 well, I would still be opposed to it,

00:34:09.620 the censorship,

00:34:10.520 but you could argue that at least that makes sense,

00:34:12.620 you're trying to save the world or something.

00:34:14.440 At least you'd have an argument.

00:34:15.460 What is the argument for censoring

00:34:17.920 a presidential candidate

00:34:19.860 who's polling at 19% in the primary?

00:34:25.420 I can't think of one.

00:34:27.160 Can you think of any legitimate reason

00:34:29.000 for censoring that?

00:34:31.500 Yeah.

00:34:31.880 Now, if he were an expert

00:34:33.240 and they thought he was just wrong,

00:34:35.200 maybe.

00:34:35.900 Voters need to hear everything he says.

00:34:38.820 The voters don't need to hear

00:34:40.080 just the part of the ABC things you need to hear.

00:34:42.300 You need to hear it all.

00:34:43.740 Now, again,

00:34:47.320 how in the world do we settle for this?

00:34:50.080 It's because things got a little weird

00:34:51.860 during the pandemic

00:34:52.740 and then they just kept getting weirder

00:34:55.420 until we're at that point

00:34:57.060 where ABC News can get on the air

00:34:59.700 and tell you to your face

00:35:01.020 that they decided

00:35:02.640 what information from a major candidate

00:35:05.260 for the presidency you would see.

00:35:08.020 And they thought that they could say that in public

00:35:10.460 and that you'd say,

00:35:11.840 oh, good for you.

00:35:12.540 It's a good thing you edited

00:35:14.260 out that dangerous stuff

00:35:15.380 so I didn't hear it.

00:35:17.700 Like, how is that okay?

00:35:20.760 It's only okay because, again,

00:35:22.980 we started a little bit weird

00:35:24.940 and it just sort of kept getting weirder

00:35:27.180 and then we got used to it.

00:35:29.080 That is so not okay.

00:35:31.120 That's not even in the right zip code

00:35:33.860 of being okay.

00:35:35.340 And they did it like there was nothing

00:35:36.940 to even be embarrassed about.

00:35:39.460 That's how far things have come.

00:35:43.380 All right.

00:35:45.060 I have a special request to all of you.

00:35:47.740 Please, I beg of you,

00:35:52.900 do not ask me what I think

00:35:56.140 of a potential presidential ticket

00:35:58.620 that would include a mixture

00:36:00.960 of a Republican and a Democrat.

00:36:03.940 Please don't ask me that again.

00:36:06.060 There is no chance of that happening.

00:36:08.520 It's zero.

00:36:09.420 I'm not going to entertain it.

00:36:13.240 It would be like,

00:36:14.700 well, what if the moon

00:36:15.860 crashed into the earth, Scott?

00:36:17.380 Can you give us an opinion on that?

00:36:18.880 It's not going to happen.

00:36:21.000 It's not going to happen.

00:36:23.140 Ever.

00:36:24.420 So every time you ask me that question,

00:36:26.440 because I'm getting it in DMs,

00:36:29.140 I'm getting it in my email,

00:36:31.100 I'm getting it by text,

00:36:32.260 everybody's asking me,

00:36:34.900 well, what if Trump ran with RFK Jr.?

00:36:38.600 What about that?

00:36:40.020 No.

00:36:41.940 It doesn't matter if it's a good idea.

00:36:44.600 It doesn't matter if it's a bad idea.

00:36:46.760 The only thing that matters is,

00:36:48.520 it's not going to happen.

00:36:51.080 That's all.

00:36:51.840 It's just not going to happen.

00:36:53.440 So I can't answer that question.

00:36:55.880 All right.

00:36:56.160 I'm trying to figure out

00:37:02.720 how to handle this Stephen Crowder,

00:37:05.380 Candace Owens divorce situation.

00:37:09.580 Like, I feel like I want to avoid it,

00:37:13.400 but everybody who had that same instinct

00:37:15.660 has sort of waded in already.

00:37:18.320 I don't want to be the last person in the world

00:37:21.560 who didn't say something about it.

00:37:23.280 So I'm going to say something generic.

00:37:26.980 So Stephen Crowder,

00:37:28.900 there's a video going around,

00:37:30.580 I don't know how anybody got it,

00:37:33.040 that shows a private conversation

00:37:35.320 between a husband and wife 0.68

00:37:37.320 captured on their own ring doorbell.

00:37:40.940 Now, how somebody got that,

00:37:42.600 probably from her lawyer or something,

00:37:44.300 I don't know, maybe.

00:37:45.780 But I give you this warning.

00:37:49.380 If you watch the video,

00:37:53.120 and that's the only information you had,

00:37:54.840 you would conclude that Stephen Crowder

00:37:57.800 is the worst husband 0.98

00:37:59.460 and maybe a terrible, terrible person. 0.98

00:38:02.200 Would you all agree with that?

00:38:03.960 If that's all you saw,

00:38:05.860 it looks really bad.

00:38:07.360 Like, really, really bad.

00:38:08.480 However, I give you this one context.

00:38:14.920 We've been fooled by hoaxes exactly this way,

00:38:18.520 where you see the video and you say,

00:38:20.400 there's only one interpretation.

00:38:22.420 Remember the Covington kids?

00:38:23.980 When I went on livestream and said,

00:38:26.400 well, there's only one way to see this.

00:38:28.260 This kid is bad.

00:38:29.720 I mean, this kid's a bad kid.

00:38:31.160 And then it was totally wrong.

00:38:34.300 Completely opposite.

00:38:36.320 He was a good kid

00:38:37.300 and didn't do anything except stand there.

00:38:40.800 That was it.

00:38:42.480 And yet he looked like the bad guy

00:38:43.760 because of the way the video only shows one side.

00:38:47.160 Likewise, of course,

00:38:48.260 with the drinking bleach hoax

00:38:49.780 and the fine people hoax, etc.

00:38:51.420 So, do you believe,

00:38:54.900 do you believe that there's absolutely nothing

00:38:57.720 that the wife could have done

00:39:00.860 that would make you say,

00:39:03.420 oh, that changes everything?

00:39:06.760 I can't.

00:39:08.420 I can't think of anything

00:39:09.520 that would make me change my mind

00:39:10.880 about this situation.

00:39:12.200 Does that mean, hold on,

00:39:14.300 does that mean that no such thing exists?

00:39:17.720 It really doesn't.

00:39:18.840 It doesn't mean that you understand the situation.

00:39:22.660 Just because you can't think of any other way

00:39:24.580 to interpret it,

00:39:25.340 and I can't,

00:39:26.240 I can't think of any other way to interpret it.

00:39:28.900 Like, I've racked my brains

00:39:30.700 trying to say,

00:39:31.840 all right,

00:39:32.540 how could this be okay

00:39:34.080 in my wildest imagination?

00:39:36.380 And I can't come up with anything.

00:39:38.000 But remember,

00:39:39.240 I also couldn't come up with anything

00:39:41.400 with the Covington kid's hoax.

00:39:44.540 The fact that you can't even imagine

00:39:46.600 something that would change your mind

00:39:48.740 about this situation

00:39:49.620 doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

00:39:52.140 And it's also none of our business.

00:39:55.140 And I just feel bad for them.

00:39:58.060 I just feel bad for both of them.

00:40:00.120 Right?

00:40:00.560 So I'm not going to speculate

00:40:02.280 what it might be that you don't know

00:40:05.520 that could change your opinion

00:40:06.640 on things, et cetera.

00:40:08.480 But I will just put this thought

00:40:11.220 into your mind.

00:40:11.860 They probably knew each other

00:40:14.860 before they got married.

00:40:16.680 Am I right?

00:40:19.820 Do you think that the wife

00:40:21.900 was just like suddenly surprised

00:40:24.000 that he's controlling?

00:40:25.900 I don't know that she was suddenly surprised.

00:40:31.240 So the question I'd have to ask is,

00:40:33.820 did one of them change the nature

00:40:36.620 of the relationship

00:40:37.460 with sort of a bait and switch?

00:40:40.560 I'm not alleging that.

00:40:44.760 That would be a shitty thing to do.

00:40:46.740 I'm not alleging that.

00:40:48.480 But suppose, use your imagination.

00:40:51.540 Suppose they had a relationship

00:40:53.020 where she actually explicitly said,

00:40:55.380 yeah, I want you to be in charge.

00:40:57.940 And I want you to be in charge

00:40:59.100 at this level.

00:41:01.380 At this exact level that you saw.

00:41:03.520 Where he would tell her

00:41:04.480 she couldn't drive a car.

00:41:06.640 You know, he would tell her

00:41:07.400 what she's doing wrong.

00:41:08.340 Is it possible

00:41:10.500 that she knew exactly

00:41:12.860 what she was getting

00:41:13.740 and explicitly agreed to it?

00:41:17.300 Is it possible?

00:41:19.260 What do you think?

00:41:22.020 There's so many things possible.

00:41:25.900 But let me say again,

00:41:27.540 if the only thing we know

00:41:28.660 is what's on the video,

00:41:29.740 there's no defending him, right?

00:41:32.820 Looks pretty bad.

00:41:34.880 But what you don't know

00:41:36.380 is what was the nature

00:41:37.680 of their explicit agreement

00:41:39.580 before they got married

00:41:40.560 about how they would

00:41:42.340 treat each other.

00:41:43.360 And did it change?

00:41:44.560 One of them baited and switched.

00:41:46.140 Wouldn't you agree?

00:41:48.200 One of them baited and switched.

00:41:50.080 Because when they got married,

00:41:51.260 they thought,

00:41:51.920 hey, you're great.

00:41:53.540 Hey, you're great too.

00:41:54.600 Let's get married.

00:41:56.260 Obviously.

00:41:56.900 They obviously thought

00:41:57.660 each other were great

00:41:58.360 when they got married.

00:41:59.540 So if they don't think

00:42:00.800 each other is the same person

00:42:02.160 that they married,

00:42:03.060 which one changed?

00:42:04.660 Do you think that Stephen Crowder

00:42:06.040 just became that guy lately?

00:42:09.420 Pretty unlikely.

00:42:11.300 Do you think that he ever

00:42:12.420 revealed his true nature

00:42:14.020 before she agreed to marry him?

00:42:17.540 I don't know.

00:42:18.500 That's actually a good question.

00:42:20.500 Do you think that

00:42:21.700 she ever presented herself

00:42:23.960 as okay with a certain situation

00:42:26.520 and then once she was married

00:42:28.140 said, well,

00:42:29.760 I thought I'd be okay with this,

00:42:32.000 but it turns out I'm not.

00:42:33.060 I don't know.

00:42:37.160 So I don't think

00:42:38.020 he can be defended.

00:42:39.180 Would you agree with that?

00:42:41.380 That you can't,

00:42:42.300 he can't be defended

00:42:43.160 based on what we've seen.

00:42:44.820 But I only caution you

00:42:46.280 that you don't know

00:42:47.520 the whole story.

00:42:48.800 And you couldn't.

00:42:49.980 It's not even possible.

00:42:51.840 So I can't defend him,

00:42:54.680 but I can tell you

00:42:55.480 you don't know the whole story

00:42:56.620 for whatever that's worth.

00:42:58.480 I like to say that

00:42:59.420 about everybody.

00:43:00.060 I'm not even a fan.

00:43:03.520 I mean,

00:43:03.780 I'm not a big Crowder fan.

00:43:05.620 I think he's been

00:43:06.240 entertaining sometimes.

00:43:07.740 But I'm not,

00:43:08.500 I don't follow him or anything.

00:43:10.260 But I do think that

00:43:11.220 just like the Tate brothers

00:43:13.760 and just like anybody else

00:43:15.500 who's not my first choice

00:43:17.800 of people to hang out with,

00:43:19.820 I think he deserves

00:43:21.980 the benefit of the doubt.

00:43:24.520 No matter how hard that is.

00:43:26.640 And it's really hard.

00:43:27.960 It's really hard.

00:43:28.900 All right.

00:43:32.920 Here's a story about

00:43:34.120 Chinese solar panel tariffs.

00:43:40.020 Okay.

00:43:41.060 Wake up to do this story.

00:43:43.320 Apparently it's important.

00:43:45.500 So Biden wants to waive

00:43:47.140 some tariffs so that,

00:43:49.220 I guess, we can get more

00:43:50.100 Chinese solar panels

00:43:51.280 at a cheaper price.

00:43:53.580 And, you know,

00:43:54.440 that's part of his,

00:43:55.220 I'm sure,

00:43:56.200 part of his climate initiatives.

00:43:57.640 And then there are some people

00:43:59.740 who want to reverse that.

00:44:02.400 And that would include

00:44:03.480 some Senate Democrats.

00:44:05.520 But here's what I had trouble

00:44:06.720 with the story.

00:44:09.040 They want a 24-month pause,

00:44:11.400 some of the people in Congress,

00:44:13.960 on the enforcement.

00:44:15.660 So it's a pause

00:44:16.700 on the enforcement

00:44:17.580 of solar panels

00:44:19.640 anti-circumvention tariffs.

00:44:22.560 Okay, let's see if I could.

00:44:26.120 So anti

00:44:26.780 means opposite.

00:44:29.960 So anti-circumvention.

00:44:31.720 But circumvention

00:44:32.480 is also the opposite

00:44:33.640 of something.

00:44:34.840 So you circumvent,

00:44:36.380 which is the opposite

00:44:37.940 of doing the thing.

00:44:39.660 So if you're

00:44:40.500 anti-circumventing,

00:44:43.380 okay,

00:44:44.100 so you're anti-circumventing

00:44:45.780 is what you want to do,

00:44:47.220 but they want to,

00:44:48.160 some of the people

00:44:48.980 want to pause.

00:44:49.920 So that would be

00:44:51.380 stopping the anti,

00:44:54.080 so you're not anti-ing

00:44:55.540 the circumvention,

00:44:57.640 which is reversing.

00:45:01.840 Just give us 1.00

00:45:02.800 our goddamn solar panels. 1.00

00:45:05.880 I can't read this story. 1.00

00:45:08.300 It's too complicated.

00:45:10.200 But I think we need

00:45:11.240 some solar panels.

00:45:12.260 All right.

00:45:17.920 Alan Dershowitz

00:45:18.940 just keeps saying things

00:45:20.120 that I agree with.

00:45:21.680 So of course,

00:45:22.440 you know,

00:45:22.660 he famously votes Democrat,

00:45:24.700 but he's willing

00:45:25.420 to defend anybody

00:45:26.500 whose civil liberties

00:45:27.760 have been abused.

00:45:30.340 And he says,

00:45:31.280 quote,

00:45:31.720 not the American 0.97

00:45:32.740 civil liberties unions,

00:45:34.060 not the usual people

00:45:34.940 in the academy,

00:45:37.140 not the New York Times,

00:45:38.440 not any of the

00:45:39.260 liberal establishment,

00:45:40.720 the lawyer continued,

00:45:42.460 are basically

00:45:43.400 defending civil liberties.

00:45:46.080 And for me,

00:45:47.800 as a liberal,

00:45:48.260 as a person

00:45:48.640 who just defended

00:45:49.300 the rights of liberals

00:45:50.120 for 60 years of my life,

00:45:51.960 the idea that they,

00:45:53.620 meaning the liberals,

00:45:54.640 are now turning

00:45:55.580 into McCarthyites

00:45:56.700 is so disappointing.

00:45:59.580 I feel like Dershowitz

00:46:01.080 is feeling like

00:46:01.920 Greenpeace in Finland.

00:46:06.240 I just spent decades

00:46:07.820 of my life

00:46:08.660 fighting for something

00:46:10.720 that I don't like

00:46:12.920 how this turned out.

00:46:13.700 So Dershowitz

00:46:15.500 defends liberals

00:46:16.820 forever,

00:46:18.180 you know,

00:46:18.500 defending their

00:46:19.440 civil liberties,

00:46:20.520 and then ends up

00:46:21.840 finding out

00:46:22.700 that they're the very

00:46:23.740 people denying

00:46:25.320 civil liberties

00:46:26.360 to others.

00:46:28.680 Ouch.

00:46:30.500 Anyway,

00:46:32.520 the New York Times

00:46:33.720 is trying to take out

00:46:34.740 Tucker because he,

00:46:36.380 apparently when you 0.93

00:46:37.560 try to kill the king, 0.95

00:46:39.380 you better get it right 1.00

00:46:40.540 the first time

00:46:41.200 because the king

00:46:42.480 is coming for you.

00:46:43.700 And Tucker,

00:46:44.360 of course,

00:46:44.660 is a huge critic

00:46:45.480 of the New York Times.

00:46:47.140 So do you think

00:46:47.860 that the New York Times

00:46:48.700 had an ethical obligation

00:46:50.260 in their reporting

00:46:51.840 about Tucker Carlson?

00:46:54.080 Did they have

00:46:54.600 an ethical obligation

00:46:55.680 to note that he is

00:46:57.360 one of their biggest critics?

00:46:59.820 Do you think

00:47:00.180 that was in the story?

00:47:02.180 Do you think

00:47:02.620 the New York Times

00:47:03.400 said,

00:47:03.900 here's a story

00:47:04.640 about our biggest critic

00:47:06.280 who continually

00:47:07.760 accuses us

00:47:08.660 of fake news

00:47:09.700 and has used

00:47:10.680 the following examples

00:47:11.800 of where we actually

00:47:12.760 didn't report fake news?

00:47:14.640 And so he's always

00:47:15.640 pointing out

00:47:16.100 our fake news,

00:47:17.120 but when we tell you

00:47:18.360 things about him,

00:47:19.200 you should totally

00:47:19.780 believe it.

00:47:21.960 That's what,

00:47:23.240 again,

00:47:24.700 how weird is that?

00:47:29.860 Literally,

00:47:30.780 the biggest critic

00:47:31.760 of the New York Times

00:47:32.800 in terms of

00:47:33.600 your prominence,

00:47:34.700 the biggest one.

00:47:35.360 and they don't

00:47:36.560 even mention?

00:47:39.180 That's not part

00:47:39.920 of the story?

00:47:41.480 How is that not

00:47:42.400 the most important

00:47:43.100 part of the story?

00:47:44.500 To me,

00:47:44.920 that's number one.

00:47:46.080 That's sentence one.

00:47:48.100 Our biggest critic,

00:47:50.080 who has often

00:47:50.900 accused us

00:47:51.540 of fake news,

00:47:52.800 for example,

00:47:54.220 there was a time

00:47:54.860 we reported

00:47:55.560 that there were

00:47:57.700 weapons of mass

00:47:58.360 destruction

00:47:58.880 in Iraq.

00:48:00.540 And he also

00:48:02.060 got on us

00:48:02.780 for the Russia

00:48:04.680 collusion hoax

00:48:05.600 and also

00:48:06.560 the fine people

00:48:07.240 hoax

00:48:07.600 and the other

00:48:08.100 hoaxes.

00:48:10.220 How is that not

00:48:11.000 the first paragraph?

00:48:12.620 Because if you

00:48:13.140 don't know that

00:48:13.720 the New York Times

00:48:14.380 and Tucker

00:48:14.840 are mortal enemies

00:48:16.040 and that Tucker

00:48:18.240 Carlson is one

00:48:18.980 of the most

00:48:19.520 existential risks

00:48:21.240 to the business

00:48:22.180 model of the

00:48:22.800 New York Times,

00:48:23.740 if you didn't

00:48:24.420 know that,

00:48:25.600 how do you

00:48:26.060 understand the

00:48:26.620 story they tell

00:48:27.280 about him?

00:48:28.940 All right.

00:48:30.600 Here's some

00:48:31.240 of the terrible

00:48:31.880 things that he's

00:48:32.660 alleged to

00:48:33.240 have done

00:48:33.680 by,

00:48:37.100 according to

00:48:37.700 the person

00:48:38.500 bringing the

00:48:38.940 lawsuit about

00:48:39.600 all the rampant

00:48:40.760 sexism.

00:48:42.140 All right?

00:48:44.760 He once

00:48:45.640 referred to

00:48:47.640 his older

00:48:49.560 female fans

00:48:50.660 as post-menopausal

00:48:52.400 women. 0.81

00:48:55.380 So he once

00:48:56.320 referred to

00:48:57.080 older women

00:48:57.960 as post-menopausal,

00:48:59.700 which is very

00:49:00.180 sexist, 0.84

00:49:00.820 isn't it? 0.95

00:49:02.660 Wait a minute.

00:49:04.560 Well,

00:49:04.940 what kind of

00:49:06.240 women are 1.00

00:49:06.640 post-menopausal?

00:49:08.440 Is it the

00:49:09.200 young ones?

00:49:10.900 Isn't older

00:49:11.920 women and 0.99

00:49:12.620 post-menopausal

00:49:13.880 kind of

00:49:16.020 similar?

00:49:18.240 So that

00:49:20.140 made it

00:49:20.580 an unfriendly

00:49:22.920 work environment

00:49:23.800 because he

00:49:24.980 noted that

00:49:25.500 biologically

00:49:26.200 women become 0.91

00:49:28.320 post-menopausal

00:49:29.580 after some

00:49:30.500 age?

00:49:31.980 What?

00:49:33.340 Well,

00:49:33.840 surely there

00:49:34.320 are much

00:49:34.600 stronger ones.

00:49:35.760 All right,

00:49:35.980 so that's the

00:49:36.420 weakest one.

00:49:37.300 If that were

00:49:37.820 the only

00:49:38.220 complaint,

00:49:38.840 I don't think

00:49:39.320 there'd be

00:49:39.680 any issue,

00:49:40.380 right?

00:49:40.800 If that were

00:49:41.180 the only

00:49:41.460 complaint.

00:49:42.200 But there

00:49:42.860 are some

00:49:43.180 big ones.

00:49:44.140 You ready

00:49:44.440 for this?

00:49:45.460 There's some

00:49:45.800 big ones.

00:49:47.600 He once

00:49:48.180 referred to,

00:49:49.000 and I can

00:49:49.440 barely say this

00:49:50.140 out loud,

00:49:50.500 it's so

00:49:50.920 terrible.

00:49:51.320 He once

00:49:53.180 referred to

00:49:53.680 a woman 0.57

00:49:54.060 as,

00:49:55.720 it's just

00:49:59.980 so hard

00:50:00.300 for me to

00:50:00.640 say this,

00:50:01.580 and this

00:50:01.920 is not me

00:50:02.420 talking,

00:50:03.120 because I

00:50:03.420 would never

00:50:03.720 use this

00:50:04.160 word,

00:50:05.200 but he

00:50:05.600 allegedly

00:50:06.180 once referred

00:50:06.880 to a woman

00:50:07.540 as yummy,

00:50:10.760 yummy.

00:50:13.640 How can

00:50:14.360 he keep

00:50:14.800 his job?

00:50:16.080 Well,

00:50:16.520 it's a good

00:50:17.160 thing they

00:50:17.500 got rid of

00:50:17.940 him,

00:50:18.700 because,

00:50:19.360 you know,

00:50:19.620 that's something

00:50:20.080 that no man

00:50:20.580 has ever said

00:50:21.120 about a

00:50:21.420 woman.

00:50:23.420 I've lived

00:50:24.020 a long time.

00:50:24.560 Have you

00:50:24.780 ever heard

00:50:25.060 a man

00:50:25.620 comment on

00:50:27.300 the attractiveness

00:50:28.420 of a woman?

00:50:30.060 Has that

00:50:30.740 happened in

00:50:31.540 your experience?

00:50:33.980 What?

00:50:34.460 Oh,

00:50:34.600 some people

00:50:35.040 say they've

00:50:35.500 seen that.

00:50:36.280 Oh,

00:50:36.500 you've seen

00:50:36.860 that.

00:50:37.320 No,

00:50:37.500 I've never

00:50:37.800 seen that

00:50:38.280 before.

00:50:39.220 I've never

00:50:39.680 seen a woman

00:50:40.280 comment on

00:50:42.300 the attractiveness,

00:50:43.500 or a man

00:50:44.000 comment on

00:50:44.500 the attractiveness

00:50:45.040 of a woman.

00:50:45.400 It's so strange.

00:50:48.580 I used to

00:50:49.280 own a restaurant.

00:50:51.120 where most

00:50:52.360 of the

00:50:52.860 front of

00:50:53.800 house staff

00:50:54.360 were women. 0.97

00:50:55.620 But there

00:50:56.160 was one

00:50:56.440 exception.

00:50:57.060 We had a

00:50:57.540 bartender.

00:50:59.260 And that

00:50:59.900 bartender was

00:51:00.840 unusually good

00:51:02.420 looking.

00:51:04.000 Do you

00:51:04.640 know how

00:51:05.140 many times

00:51:05.900 the female 1.00

00:51:07.540 employees

00:51:08.380 said something

00:51:10.420 about him

00:51:11.000 while I was

00:51:12.240 present?

00:51:12.800 this was a

00:51:15.360 typical

00:51:15.800 conversation

00:51:16.520 from the

00:51:17.080 female 0.86

00:51:17.440 employees

00:51:17.940 of my

00:51:19.000 own

00:51:19.240 company.

00:51:20.440 Oh,

00:51:20.640 my God.

00:51:21.580 Do you

00:51:22.160 see him?

00:51:23.120 Oh,

00:51:23.340 my God.

00:51:25.820 All the 1.00

00:51:26.620 fucking time. 1.00

00:51:28.000 All day 1.00

00:51:28.840 long.

00:51:29.540 They would

00:51:30.180 talk about

00:51:30.680 how hot

00:51:31.160 he was.

00:51:31.920 All day

00:51:32.440 long.

00:51:33.620 You couldn't

00:51:34.440 get away

00:51:34.800 from it.

00:51:36.820 Was he

00:51:37.460 gay? 0.86

00:51:37.900 No,

00:51:38.120 he was

00:51:38.360 very not

00:51:38.860 gay. 0.93

00:51:39.080 All right, 0.91

00:51:41.720 so,

00:51:41.980 but that's

00:51:42.280 not the

00:51:42.520 only thing.

00:51:43.220 Apparently,

00:51:44.500 Tucker used

00:51:45.380 the C word

00:51:46.260 when referring

00:51:47.600 to Sidney

00:51:49.300 Powell.

00:51:51.280 Wow.

00:51:53.100 Wow,

00:51:53.760 so that's

00:51:54.100 sexist. 0.58

00:51:55.620 So, 0.64

00:51:56.300 I'm sure

00:51:57.000 it had

00:51:57.260 nothing to

00:51:57.820 do with

00:51:58.100 the fact

00:51:58.580 that she

00:52:00.120 embarrassed

00:52:00.640 the entire

00:52:01.360 Republican

00:52:01.900 Party and

00:52:03.100 changed

00:52:03.480 politics in

00:52:04.280 the United

00:52:04.660 States by

00:52:05.840 believing

00:52:06.300 the Kraken.

00:52:09.080 and that

00:52:10.500 even at

00:52:12.080 the point

00:52:12.440 when it

00:52:12.740 was clear

00:52:13.340 that she

00:52:13.700 didn't have

00:52:14.100 the goods,

00:52:15.340 she still 0.93

00:52:15.940 led Fox

00:52:17.520 News and

00:52:18.160 Tucker and

00:52:18.940 others along

00:52:20.480 the,

00:52:21.280 until eventually

00:52:22.020 he just

00:52:22.540 disavowed her

00:52:23.620 basically by

00:52:24.300 saying that

00:52:24.680 she had no

00:52:25.100 evidence for

00:52:25.680 her claims.

00:52:27.380 So,

00:52:28.880 how many

00:52:30.480 of you are

00:52:31.020 offended by

00:52:32.620 him using

00:52:33.160 the C word

00:52:33.880 about one

00:52:34.580 specific person,

00:52:35.780 Sidney Powell,

00:52:36.340 for this

00:52:37.340 specific set

00:52:39.080 of events?

00:52:41.400 Is anybody

00:52:42.240 offended by

00:52:42.840 that?

00:52:44.200 No,

00:52:44.780 I thought

00:52:45.020 the word

00:52:45.340 was well

00:52:45.780 chosen.

00:52:47.760 I thought

00:52:48.260 that word,

00:52:49.260 so that's

00:52:49.740 the strongest

00:52:50.400 word,

00:52:51.540 right?

00:52:52.560 It's the

00:52:53.240 strongest

00:52:53.660 word.

00:52:55.680 And I

00:52:56.060 think the

00:52:56.500 situation

00:52:56.980 called for

00:52:57.480 the strongest

00:52:57.900 word.

00:52:59.300 Now,

00:52:59.860 he didn't

00:53:00.240 say it,

00:53:00.640 he didn't

00:53:01.220 say it on

00:53:01.640 TV.

00:53:03.040 He wasn't

00:53:03.660 screaming it,

00:53:04.380 I believe it

00:53:04.900 was in an

00:53:05.300 email,

00:53:05.920 right?

00:53:06.340 It was

00:53:07.040 in a

00:53:07.320 private

00:53:07.740 email.

00:53:10.740 Would

00:53:11.300 anybody

00:53:11.640 like to

00:53:12.260 confess

00:53:12.960 that they've

00:53:13.900 ever used

00:53:14.460 the C word

00:53:15.240 about a

00:53:17.480 male or

00:53:17.960 female in

00:53:19.020 a private

00:53:19.600 context?

00:53:21.700 Anybody?

00:53:23.140 Have any

00:53:23.560 of you ever

00:53:24.060 used that

00:53:24.480 word?

00:53:30.260 Maybe.

00:53:31.480 Maybe.

00:53:32.860 Do you

00:53:33.540 know what

00:53:33.800 words are

00:53:34.420 allowed

00:53:34.880 privately?

00:53:35.440 What would

00:53:37.660 be an

00:53:37.900 example of

00:53:38.520 an

00:53:38.720 inappropriate

00:53:39.380 word that

00:53:40.500 somebody's

00:53:40.980 using privately

00:53:41.780 to someone

00:53:42.940 who doesn't

00:53:43.440 mind that

00:53:43.880 word?

00:53:45.020 What would

00:53:45.340 be an

00:53:45.560 example of

00:53:46.020 that?

00:53:46.980 Nothing.

00:53:48.260 Nothing.

00:53:49.260 There's no

00:53:49.700 such thing as 0.74

00:53:51.020 an offensive

00:53:51.540 word spoken

00:53:53.040 privately to

00:53:53.820 someone who's

00:53:54.300 not offended

00:53:54.780 by the

00:53:55.140 word.

00:53:56.340 That's not

00:53:56.960 a thing.

00:53:57.800 That's like

00:53:58.320 it literally

00:53:58.820 made up.

00:53:59.860 In order for

00:54:00.660 this to be

00:54:01.140 offensive,

00:54:01.500 you have

00:54:02.240 to take

00:54:02.620 it out

00:54:02.920 of its

00:54:03.200 original

00:54:03.600 context,

00:54:04.720 which is

00:54:05.140 two people

00:54:05.680 talking

00:54:06.200 privately.

00:54:07.480 And you

00:54:07.760 have to

00:54:08.040 move it

00:54:08.380 into the

00:54:08.720 public

00:54:08.980 context and

00:54:10.120 then imagine

00:54:10.720 if it

00:54:11.080 happened there.

00:54:12.340 Oh,

00:54:13.100 imagine if

00:54:13.920 he'd said

00:54:14.220 this in

00:54:14.580 front of

00:54:14.940 other women. 1.00

00:54:16.080 Oh,

00:54:16.660 that's

00:54:16.920 terrible.

00:54:17.980 But that

00:54:18.780 didn't

00:54:19.120 happen.

00:54:20.920 The entire

00:54:21.860 offense is

00:54:22.520 an imaginary

00:54:23.140 offense where

00:54:24.700 you have to

00:54:25.080 change it from

00:54:25.880 two people

00:54:26.560 privately

00:54:26.980 talking who

00:54:27.640 weren't

00:54:27.840 bothered a bit

00:54:28.560 to some

00:54:30.280 imaginary

00:54:30.780 context where

00:54:31.560 it was other

00:54:32.000 people hearing

00:54:32.560 it.

00:54:33.560 Otherwise,

00:54:34.120 it's nothing.

00:54:35.340 It's nothing.

00:54:37.720 So they got

00:54:38.240 that.

00:54:38.440 But that's

00:54:38.700 not the only

00:54:39.100 thing.

00:54:39.520 Hold on.

00:54:40.020 Hold on.

00:54:41.420 Apparently,

00:54:42.020 people who

00:54:42.480 were not

00:54:43.140 Tucker Carlson

00:54:43.960 also said

00:54:44.640 things.

00:54:46.240 So, I

00:54:47.000 mean,

00:54:48.100 Tucker Carlson

00:54:48.840 is bad

00:54:49.380 because people

00:54:51.160 who worked

00:54:51.720 for him

00:54:52.360 when he

00:54:53.600 wasn't there

00:54:54.280 would say

00:54:55.800 terrible things

00:54:56.440 too.

00:54:56.700 So this

00:54:58.280 is something

00:54:58.700 that some

00:55:00.200 of the men

00:55:00.720 must have

00:55:01.180 said,

00:55:01.600 I assume

00:55:02.040 the men,

00:55:02.960 about some

00:55:03.600 female guests. 0.54

00:55:05.400 They actually

00:55:06.280 talked about

00:55:06.960 which of

00:55:07.800 them were

00:55:08.260 more

00:55:08.740 effable,

00:55:10.120 but they

00:55:10.860 used the

00:55:11.500 F word.

00:55:13.460 Now,

00:55:14.220 that's

00:55:16.020 something that

00:55:16.580 people don't

00:55:17.100 ever do.

00:55:19.120 Now,

00:55:19.700 I would

00:55:20.000 agree,

00:55:20.780 if you're

00:55:21.420 having that

00:55:21.860 conversation

00:55:22.460 in front

00:55:23.180 of women

00:55:23.660 in a

00:55:24.540 business

00:55:24.980 setting,

00:55:25.780 that's

00:55:26.340 pretty

00:55:26.720 unacceptable.

00:55:27.840 Would you

00:55:28.140 agree with

00:55:28.460 that?

00:55:29.260 That if

00:55:29.620 it's a

00:55:29.920 business

00:55:30.180 setting and

00:55:30.680 it's a

00:55:30.920 mixed group,

00:55:31.460 that is

00:55:31.780 unacceptable.

00:55:32.700 I agree

00:55:33.120 completely.

00:55:34.860 But here's

00:55:35.700 the thing.

00:55:37.180 The

00:55:37.400 allegation is

00:55:38.180 that Tucker

00:55:39.080 wasn't in

00:55:39.620 the room.

00:55:41.280 Tucker

00:55:41.800 wasn't there.

00:55:42.920 It's actually

00:55:43.580 about other

00:55:44.140 people.

00:55:45.020 They're trying

00:55:45.460 to make

00:55:45.800 accusations

00:55:46.420 about other

00:55:47.100 people stick

00:55:48.620 to Tucker.

00:55:50.120 Tucker

00:55:50.500 said something

00:55:51.180 privately in

00:55:52.080 an email or

00:55:52.760 a text or

00:55:53.300 something,

00:55:54.120 which is a

00:55:54.700 nothing.

00:55:54.940 fine.

00:55:56.140 These

00:55:56.320 other people

00:55:56.780 did something

00:55:57.340 which if

00:55:58.400 it happened,

00:55:59.620 I would

00:56:00.140 agree that

00:56:00.540 would be

00:56:00.820 inappropriate

00:56:01.300 behavior.

00:56:02.600 And if I

00:56:03.160 had been

00:56:03.420 the boss,

00:56:03.980 I would

00:56:04.180 have tried

00:56:05.420 to put

00:56:05.680 an end

00:56:05.900 to it.

00:56:06.360 Because it

00:56:06.660 makes people

00:56:07.080 uncomfortable

00:56:07.600 and you

00:56:08.220 just don't

00:56:08.540 need it.

00:56:10.100 But New

00:56:11.420 York Times

00:56:11.860 is trying

00:56:12.280 really hard

00:56:13.000 to slime

00:56:13.520 this guy.

00:56:14.240 And they

00:56:14.420 have so

00:56:14.900 little.

00:56:15.780 There's

00:56:16.120 just so

00:56:16.560 little that

00:56:17.060 they have

00:56:17.340 to work

00:56:17.620 with.

00:56:17.820 What else

00:56:18.080 they have?

00:56:19.360 Then also,

00:56:21.320 it was

00:56:21.920 reported that

00:56:22.660 somewhere around

00:56:23.260 the office

00:56:23.720 there are

00:56:24.160 multiple

00:56:24.580 photos,

00:56:25.660 I don't

00:56:26.180 know why,

00:56:26.980 of Nancy

00:56:27.580 Pelosi in

00:56:28.260 a bathing

00:56:28.700 suit in

00:56:29.180 Europe.

00:56:32.060 Now,

00:56:32.820 I don't

00:56:33.700 know why.

00:56:34.860 I assume

00:56:35.400 it's because

00:56:35.940 she doesn't

00:56:36.580 look good

00:56:36.960 in a bathing

00:56:37.360 suit?

00:56:37.840 Because she's

00:56:38.380 90 or

00:56:40.260 whatever she

00:56:40.620 is.

00:56:41.280 Is that

00:56:41.580 why?

00:56:42.920 But is

00:56:44.360 that sexist?

00:56:47.260 Are you

00:56:47.960 telling me

00:56:48.580 that the

00:56:49.800 men in

00:56:50.400 the office

00:56:50.840 have never

00:56:51.340 made fun

00:56:51.920 of the

00:56:52.480 body shape

00:56:54.040 or the

00:56:54.500 look of

00:56:55.020 a man?

00:56:56.780 They've

00:56:57.300 never made

00:56:57.720 fun of

00:56:58.360 Chris Christie's

00:56:59.640 weight?

00:57:01.320 No?

00:57:02.980 You don't

00:57:03.840 think there's

00:57:04.280 any man

00:57:04.880 they've ever

00:57:05.300 made fun

00:57:05.680 of?

00:57:06.000 Do you

00:57:06.220 think anybody

00:57:06.700 on Fox

00:57:07.180 News ever

00:57:07.840 said anything

00:57:08.280 about Trump's

00:57:08.840 haircut?

00:57:10.200 Or his

00:57:10.980 weight,

00:57:12.320 even?

00:57:13.580 I don't

00:57:13.740 know.

00:57:14.540 Body

00:57:15.100 shaving is

00:57:15.600 the most

00:57:16.000 common thing

00:57:17.820 in politics.

00:57:18.580 as horrible

00:57:19.440 as it is.

00:57:20.100 I'm opposed

00:57:20.800 to it.

00:57:21.740 But it's

00:57:22.340 just so

00:57:22.660 common.

00:57:23.260 And it

00:57:23.480 goes both

00:57:23.940 ways.

00:57:25.220 I don't

00:57:25.340 know.

00:57:27.160 That's

00:57:27.640 all they

00:57:28.240 got?

00:57:29.020 Let's

00:57:29.360 see what

00:57:29.640 else they

00:57:29.980 have.

00:57:31.760 The

00:57:32.280 accusation

00:57:33.060 that no

00:57:33.540 woman was 0.99

00:57:34.100 safe from

00:57:34.560 being called

00:57:35.120 a C-word.

00:57:37.460 Should they

00:57:38.140 be?

00:57:39.460 Should women 1.00

00:57:40.320 be safe from

00:57:41.660 being called

00:57:42.360 a bad

00:57:43.380 insult?

00:57:45.200 Here's my

00:57:45.960 opinion.

00:57:46.840 Women should 1.00

00:57:47.600 be safe.

00:57:48.580 from that

00:57:49.500 word.

00:57:51.140 Unless

00:57:51.620 there's

00:57:52.500 Sidney

00:57:52.820 Powell and

00:57:53.780 they just

00:57:54.120 said the

00:57:54.580 crack in

00:57:55.060 this

00:57:55.220 coming and

00:57:56.100 then you

00:57:56.400 believed them

00:57:56.920 because they

00:57:57.300 seemed to be

00:57:57.740 credible and

00:57:58.680 then you 0.92

00:57:59.020 screwed up

00:57:59.540 everything and

00:58:00.240 you cost your

00:58:00.820 network three

00:58:02.280 quarters of a

00:58:03.000 billion dollars

00:58:03.720 and your

00:58:04.260 job.

00:58:05.640 If that

00:58:06.180 happens to

00:58:06.720 you, yeah,

00:58:07.160 you can use

00:58:07.640 the C-word.

00:58:09.100 You can use

00:58:09.640 it all day

00:58:10.100 long under

00:58:10.620 that situation.

00:58:11.720 But no,

00:58:12.220 you're not

00:58:13.420 going to call

00:58:13.720 your co-worker

00:58:14.480 who's five

00:58:15.560 minutes late to

00:58:16.160 the movie the

00:58:16.740 C-word.

00:58:18.440 If you're

00:58:19.140 acting like

00:58:19.640 calling the

00:58:20.140 C-word is

00:58:20.780 just always

00:58:21.340 right or

00:58:22.380 always wrong, 1.00

00:58:23.500 that's dumb. 0.98

00:58:25.100 It's not 0.99

00:58:25.560 wrong.

00:58:27.200 There is

00:58:27.800 absolutely a

00:58:29.020 place where

00:58:29.540 that word

00:58:30.020 belongs and

00:58:31.580 I'm not

00:58:31.920 going to

00:58:32.140 lose it.

00:58:33.240 It's vital

00:58:33.920 to my

00:58:34.400 communication

00:58:35.380 strategy.

00:58:38.140 But I

00:58:38.940 will reserve

00:58:39.560 it for the

00:58:40.520 worst of the

00:58:41.080 situations or

00:58:41.880 when it's

00:58:42.580 funny.

00:58:43.460 That works

00:58:43.920 too.

00:58:45.680 For example,

00:58:47.740 I would

00:58:48.920 never use

00:58:49.380 that word

00:58:49.720 for Kamala

00:58:50.340 Harris because

00:58:52.160 whatever I

00:58:52.880 think about

00:58:53.380 her, that 0.91

00:58:54.060 word doesn't

00:58:54.940 seem to

00:58:55.300 apply.

00:58:56.360 She has a

00:58:57.260 competence

00:58:57.600 problem.

00:58:59.120 But for

00:58:59.740 some people

00:59:00.560 in some

00:59:01.800 situations,

00:59:03.100 it's just

00:59:03.660 the only

00:59:04.080 word that

00:59:04.500 works.

00:59:06.960 All right,

00:59:08.120 West

00:59:08.680 Virginia's

00:59:09.580 Republican

00:59:10.220 Governor,

00:59:10.960 Jim Justice.

00:59:12.120 What a

00:59:12.340 great name

00:59:12.800 for a

00:59:13.360 politician.

00:59:15.040 Wouldn't

00:59:15.300 you love

00:59:15.600 your name

00:59:16.200 to be

00:59:16.480 Justice?

00:59:18.560 Yeah,

00:59:18.960 that's just

00:59:19.300 a great

00:59:19.700 last name,

00:59:20.840 Justice.

00:59:22.460 But he's

00:59:23.260 72, but

00:59:24.220 he's going

00:59:24.480 to run

00:59:24.720 against

00:59:25.080 Senator

00:59:26.260 Manchin

00:59:26.680 who's

00:59:27.680 sort of

00:59:29.320 a centrist

00:59:29.820 Democrat.

00:59:31.420 Now,

00:59:32.280 you see

00:59:32.660 this and

00:59:33.020 you say

00:59:33.300 to yourself,

00:59:33.940 yay,

00:59:35.000 if you're

00:59:36.020 Republican,

00:59:36.560 you say

00:59:36.800 yay,

00:59:37.360 we could

00:59:38.280 get another

00:59:39.920 Republican in

00:59:40.680 there and

00:59:41.240 Manchin's

00:59:41.760 unpredictable,

00:59:42.300 sometimes he

00:59:43.220 likes this,

00:59:43.900 sometimes he

00:59:44.320 doesn't,

00:59:45.140 so this

00:59:45.500 would be

00:59:45.680 good,

00:59:45.920 right?

00:59:46.500 And then

00:59:46.940 I read

00:59:47.160 about this

00:59:47.520 guy's

00:59:47.780 background.

00:59:49.520 He owns

00:59:50.520 a sprawling

00:59:51.440 empire of

00:59:52.220 coal mines,

00:59:54.180 processing

00:59:54.640 facilities and

00:59:55.660 agricultural

00:59:56.300 interests.

00:59:58.440 That's very

00:59:59.260 close to

00:59:59.800 exactly the

01:00:00.540 wrong person

01:00:01.160 for government,

01:00:02.500 isn't it?

01:00:04.280 It's sort

01:00:04.720 of like

01:00:05.060 exactly the

01:00:06.420 wrong person.

01:00:08.040 Who

01:00:08.660 wants a

01:00:09.160 coal magnate

01:00:10.240 as a

01:00:11.120 senator?

01:00:12.520 Like,

01:00:13.020 I think

01:00:13.420 that coal

01:00:14.320 is necessary

01:00:15.060 at the

01:00:15.420 moment.

01:00:16.600 But who

01:00:16.960 wants a

01:00:17.420 senator

01:00:17.760 whose

01:00:18.760 financial

01:00:19.340 interests

01:00:19.800 are

01:00:20.020 completely

01:00:20.580 tied up

01:00:21.520 with coal?

01:00:23.100 Do you

01:00:23.580 think somebody

01:00:24.620 who owns

01:00:25.220 a sprawling

01:00:26.820 coal industry,

01:00:30.080 do you think

01:00:30.480 that person's

01:00:31.100 going to

01:00:31.320 give you

01:00:31.680 an objective

01:00:32.300 view of

01:00:33.960 climate and

01:00:35.380 energy?

01:00:36.520 That's

01:00:36.840 crazy.

01:00:38.280 It's so

01:00:38.780 crazy.

01:00:40.160 And then

01:00:40.780 people say,

01:00:41.240 oh, he

01:00:41.420 has a good

01:00:41.740 chance, we

01:00:42.200 like him.

01:00:43.020 That's

01:00:43.320 crazy.

01:00:45.780 Anyway.

01:00:50.700 So I

01:00:51.300 saw this

01:00:51.680 story that

01:00:52.240 I'm so

01:00:52.800 curious about,

01:00:53.640 but I

01:00:53.840 don't know

01:00:54.140 the answer

01:00:54.540 to it,

01:00:54.920 which is

01:00:55.320 Brian

01:00:55.880 Ramelli,

01:00:57.100 as I say

01:00:57.900 almost every

01:00:58.480 day, he's

01:00:59.340 a great

01:00:59.660 follow for

01:01:00.440 keeping up

01:01:01.120 with what's

01:01:01.520 happening with

01:01:01.940 AI, not

01:01:03.300 just, you

01:01:04.360 know, hey,

01:01:04.720 there's a

01:01:05.020 new app,

01:01:05.700 but really

01:01:06.800 understanding

01:01:07.560 the implications

01:01:08.640 and where

01:01:09.740 it could go.

01:01:10.560 He's the

01:01:11.100 best one for

01:01:11.620 that, I

01:01:11.940 think.

01:01:12.920 And he

01:01:14.220 tweeted about,

01:01:15.020 there was an

01:01:15.380 article about

01:01:16.380 one-third of

01:01:17.960 U.S. teen

01:01:18.480 girls seriously

01:01:19.680 considered, and

01:01:21.440 I won't, I'm

01:01:22.720 not even going

01:01:23.140 to use the

01:01:23.500 words, because

01:01:24.900 I don't want

01:01:25.340 to get

01:01:25.600 demonetized just

01:01:26.640 for using

01:01:27.000 words, but

01:01:27.760 let's just

01:01:28.100 say it

01:01:28.600 was, they

01:01:29.880 considered doing

01:01:30.540 something that

01:01:31.320 would be the

01:01:33.720 cessation of

01:01:34.860 their mortal

01:01:35.680 existence.

01:01:38.140 And that, and

01:01:39.200 the news said

01:01:40.080 one-third of

01:01:42.020 U.S. teens

01:01:42.640 thought about

01:01:43.280 it in 2021,

01:01:44.400 according to

01:01:44.880 the CDC.

01:01:46.360 One-third.

01:01:47.500 So here's the

01:01:48.260 first thing I

01:01:48.740 would add to

01:01:49.140 the story.

01:01:50.320 Is that a

01:01:51.020 lot?

01:01:53.460 I don't know.

01:01:54.860 One-third

01:01:55.380 sounds about

01:01:55.920 normal.

01:01:57.860 Sounds normal,

01:01:58.900 unfortunately.

01:01:59.280 So it might

01:02:00.060 be up, but

01:02:01.280 still it's a

01:02:01.800 problem.

01:02:02.780 But here's

01:02:03.900 what Brian

01:02:04.540 says about

01:02:05.200 that.

01:02:06.000 When we

01:02:06.480 prompt AI,

01:02:08.720 any AI, in

01:02:10.460 a way that

01:02:10.860 does not

01:02:11.280 pay homage

01:02:12.760 to any

01:02:13.280 agenda at

01:02:14.120 all, we

01:02:15.180 arrive at

01:02:15.780 the response,

01:02:16.860 we arrive at

01:02:18.220 the reasons.

01:02:18.960 So that would

01:02:19.280 be the reasons

01:02:19.920 for why the

01:02:20.580 one-third of

01:02:21.940 U.S. teen

01:02:22.580 girls have 0.89

01:02:23.140 considered that.

01:02:24.280 And the

01:02:24.740 question AI

01:02:25.420 asks us, are

01:02:26.860 we ready to

01:02:27.520 hear it?

01:02:27.940 Oh, my

01:02:29.780 God.

01:02:30.960 What does he

01:02:31.680 know that we

01:02:32.140 don't know

01:02:32.520 yet?

01:02:34.180 Did he ask

01:02:35.960 AI to

01:02:37.960 explain what's

01:02:38.740 going on, and

01:02:39.520 did it give him

01:02:40.120 a definitive

01:02:40.640 answer?

01:02:43.100 I don't know

01:02:43.880 that the answer

01:02:44.360 is right, but

01:02:46.060 given that the

01:02:46.620 answer would be

01:02:47.400 based on the

01:02:48.600 collection of

01:02:49.200 human language,

01:02:50.480 et cetera, it

01:02:51.460 might be something

01:02:52.200 that strikes us

01:02:53.180 as right, because

01:02:54.580 we think the way

01:02:55.340 AI thinks in

01:02:56.180 many ways.

01:02:57.940 you've seen

01:02:59.240 it, you

01:03:01.320 don't want

01:03:01.800 it.

01:03:06.820 What do you

01:03:07.740 think is the

01:03:08.200 answer?

01:03:09.240 Some people

01:03:09.720 think they

01:03:10.100 know the

01:03:10.420 answer.

01:03:15.000 Oh, we

01:03:15.560 don't think the

01:03:16.020 way AI

01:03:16.400 thinks?

01:03:17.000 Yeah, we

01:03:17.280 do.

01:03:18.660 Not every

01:03:19.380 person, because

01:03:20.820 every person

01:03:21.400 thinks differently

01:03:22.300 than every other

01:03:23.200 person.

01:03:24.100 So you can't

01:03:24.640 say AI

01:03:25.160 thinks like

01:03:25.740 every one

01:03:26.560 of us, but

01:03:27.700 AI is based

01:03:28.460 on human

01:03:29.060 thinking patterns.

01:03:30.140 It's based

01:03:30.500 on our

01:03:30.860 language.

01:03:32.120 So in

01:03:32.600 theory, the

01:03:33.500 reason we

01:03:33.860 can talk to

01:03:34.420 it, and it

01:03:34.760 sounds like a

01:03:35.240 person, is

01:03:35.800 that it

01:03:36.060 matches our

01:03:37.840 thinking process

01:03:38.620 in general.

01:03:42.420 All right.

01:03:44.540 Well, I

01:03:45.140 guess I don't

01:03:45.600 know if you

01:03:46.980 know the

01:03:47.320 answer to

01:03:47.700 that.

01:03:50.040 All right.

01:03:51.320 Heineken is

01:03:52.680 introducing these

01:03:53.600 new AI guides

01:03:54.800 so to look

01:03:55.260 like an

01:03:55.680 avatar on

01:03:56.360 a screen in

01:03:57.840 airports.

01:03:59.980 So I guess

01:04:00.660 it's advertising

01:04:01.440 their beer, but

01:04:04.920 at the same

01:04:05.340 time it's

01:04:05.740 providing a

01:04:06.320 service.

01:04:06.860 So it's

01:04:07.180 better than

01:04:07.540 an advertisement

01:04:08.180 that you can

01:04:09.280 interact with

01:04:09.900 it.

01:04:10.380 So you can

01:04:10.800 walk up to

01:04:11.500 a deep

01:04:14.680 fake looking

01:04:15.460 CGI character

01:04:16.480 and you can

01:04:17.320 just talk to

01:04:17.940 it.

01:04:18.860 And it

01:04:19.340 will help

01:04:20.060 you in the

01:04:20.680 airport, like

01:04:21.900 tell you when

01:04:22.340 your flights are

01:04:23.060 or whatever.

01:04:23.480 Now, is

01:04:25.160 that the

01:04:25.460 greatest

01:04:25.780 thing?

01:04:27.500 In terms of

01:04:28.520 commercializing

01:04:29.380 AI, that's

01:04:30.700 just one of

01:04:31.140 the best

01:04:31.500 ideas I've

01:04:32.080 seen.

01:04:33.060 I would

01:04:33.540 love to

01:04:34.440 be able to

01:04:34.940 talk to a

01:04:35.760 non-human

01:04:36.500 entity to

01:04:37.380 ask a

01:04:37.780 question at

01:04:38.240 an airport.

01:04:39.100 Do you

01:04:39.360 know why?

01:04:40.580 Because talking

01:04:41.420 to human

01:04:42.080 entities in

01:04:42.760 the airport

01:04:43.100 doesn't go

01:04:43.700 well.

01:04:44.540 Have you

01:04:44.820 tried?

01:04:46.800 Yeah, you

01:04:47.420 have to wait

01:04:47.820 in line,

01:04:49.720 you get up

01:04:50.260 there, and

01:04:51.180 then they

01:04:51.460 tell you

01:04:51.780 that station

01:04:53.840 is closed.

01:04:55.180 Well, why

01:04:55.760 am I waiting

01:04:56.240 in line for

01:04:56.760 something that's

01:04:57.280 closed?

01:04:58.040 Oh, I was

01:04:58.520 just answering

01:04:59.000 that one

01:04:59.400 question, but

01:05:00.040 we're closed.

01:05:01.280 You made me

01:05:01.820 wait in line?

01:05:03.080 I waited in

01:05:03.940 line.

01:05:04.460 You saw me

01:05:04.940 waiting in

01:05:05.360 line, and

01:05:05.920 when I got

01:05:06.300 here, you

01:05:06.580 say, you're

01:05:07.140 not open?

01:05:08.280 Maybe you

01:05:08.720 could have

01:05:08.920 told me that

01:05:09.360 was Hooter.

01:05:10.360 And then you

01:05:10.940 get into a

01:05:11.440 fight with

01:05:11.860 them, and

01:05:12.280 all kinds of

01:05:12.880 things happen.

01:05:13.820 So, yeah, I

01:05:14.680 want to talk

01:05:15.160 to the same

01:05:16.240 reason I want

01:05:16.720 to use an

01:05:17.100 ATM instead

01:05:17.860 of using a

01:05:18.460 teller.

01:05:18.740 I just

01:05:19.660 don't want

01:05:20.220 the human

01:05:21.500 problem in

01:05:22.540 my transaction.

01:05:23.880 I just want

01:05:24.560 the information.

01:05:29.200 Yeah.

01:05:31.040 So, here's

01:05:32.180 another thing

01:05:32.780 that is a

01:05:35.320 big deal.

01:05:36.060 So, you've

01:05:38.820 heard that

01:05:39.720 Biden is

01:05:41.720 going to

01:05:42.560 charge people

01:05:43.420 with good

01:05:44.080 credit who

01:05:45.260 have loans.

01:05:45.840 they'll pay

01:05:46.920 an extra

01:05:47.340 50 bucks a

01:05:48.200 month or

01:05:48.500 something, and

01:05:49.480 that will

01:05:49.800 help pay for

01:05:50.460 people who

01:05:51.140 have bad

01:05:52.000 credit but

01:05:52.740 also would

01:05:53.160 like to get

01:05:53.620 loans.

01:05:55.020 Now, it

01:05:55.600 turns out

01:05:56.120 that this

01:05:58.220 will hurt

01:05:58.780 Asian-Americans

01:05:59.800 more than

01:06:00.600 white applicants

01:06:02.340 because not

01:06:04.200 only will the

01:06:05.000 Asian-Americans

01:06:05.660 have the

01:06:06.120 highest credit

01:06:07.020 scores in

01:06:07.860 general, says

01:06:09.880 this report,

01:06:11.140 but they

01:06:13.600 also get

01:06:14.200 turned down

01:06:14.800 for loans

01:06:15.500 more than

01:06:16.160 white people.

01:06:17.060 Did you

01:06:17.340 know that?

01:06:18.460 Did you

01:06:18.780 know that

01:06:19.240 Asian-Americans

01:06:20.060 have the

01:06:20.520 highest credit

01:06:21.240 but they

01:06:22.400 get turned

01:06:23.080 down more

01:06:23.700 than white

01:06:24.220 Americans who

01:06:25.000 do not have

01:06:25.540 as good a

01:06:25.920 credit?

01:06:27.380 Is that

01:06:27.980 racism?

01:06:30.160 Is that

01:06:30.760 obvious racism?

01:06:35.200 Probably.

01:06:36.360 Let me give

01:06:36.860 you a 0.57

01:06:37.640 counter-argument.

01:06:38.860 You ready for

01:06:39.380 the weirdest

01:06:39.780 counter-argument?

01:06:40.600 You will never

01:06:41.080 see this one

01:06:41.600 coming.

01:06:42.960 All right.

01:06:43.180 This is one

01:06:44.040 that you

01:06:44.460 would not

01:06:44.940 see coming

01:06:45.520 at all.

01:06:46.960 Ready?

01:06:47.740 I've told you

01:06:48.440 this story

01:06:48.880 before, but

01:06:49.440 now I'm going

01:06:49.800 to tie it

01:06:50.460 to this

01:06:50.740 story.

01:06:51.400 I used to

01:06:52.180 be a

01:06:52.440 commercial

01:06:52.820 lender.

01:06:54.200 I would

01:06:54.440 make loans

01:06:54.940 for small

01:06:55.760 businesses,

01:06:56.500 usually dentists

01:06:57.300 and professionals

01:06:59.000 like that.

01:07:00.460 And my

01:07:01.300 job was to

01:07:02.020 review loan

01:07:03.780 applications.

01:07:05.120 So I would

01:07:05.760 look at all

01:07:06.260 the factors of

01:07:07.240 their credit

01:07:07.700 worthiness.

01:07:08.640 And then I

01:07:09.280 would take it

01:07:09.700 to my boss,

01:07:10.340 who would be

01:07:10.640 the final sign

01:07:11.440 off, but I

01:07:12.800 would make a

01:07:13.260 recommendation

01:07:13.860 that you

01:07:14.460 would typically

01:07:14.900 agree with.

01:07:16.340 So I've done

01:07:17.000 all the work.

01:07:17.680 I bring it to

01:07:18.180 my boss and I

01:07:18.960 say, here's a

01:07:19.660 loan.

01:07:20.480 It's for, I

01:07:21.520 think it was a

01:07:21.880 dentist office.

01:07:23.220 And as you

01:07:23.940 can see, the

01:07:25.380 person asking

01:07:26.660 for the loan,

01:07:27.660 they show their

01:07:28.440 income and they

01:07:29.660 show what it

01:07:30.100 will take to

01:07:30.580 service the

01:07:31.140 loan.

01:07:31.800 And you can

01:07:32.520 see that they

01:07:32.960 don't have enough

01:07:33.620 money to

01:07:34.820 qualify under

01:07:35.800 our standards.

01:07:36.440 And my

01:07:39.160 boss, who

01:07:40.280 had been a

01:07:40.820 lender for

01:07:41.260 40 years,

01:07:42.640 takes the

01:07:43.080 application from

01:07:43.980 me, and

01:07:44.960 while I'm

01:07:45.560 telling him

01:07:46.080 that they

01:07:46.640 don't have

01:07:47.020 enough money

01:07:47.500 to pay back

01:07:48.040 the loan,

01:07:49.560 he writes

01:07:50.120 approved on

01:07:50.740 it.

01:07:52.120 While I'm

01:07:52.820 telling him

01:07:53.260 they don't

01:07:53.760 have enough

01:07:54.200 money to

01:07:54.620 pay the

01:07:54.940 loan.

01:07:56.340 And I

01:07:56.920 said,

01:07:57.380 what just

01:07:58.740 happened here?

01:08:00.200 So now

01:08:00.560 you're thinking

01:08:00.940 it's because

01:08:01.320 it's white

01:08:01.700 people, right?

01:08:02.840 He was a

01:08:03.240 white guy.

01:08:04.780 So you're

01:08:05.100 thinking he

01:08:05.420 basically just

01:08:06.060 gave the

01:08:06.380 white people

01:08:06.820 the loan, 0.92

01:08:07.280 aren't you?

01:08:07.960 Is that

01:08:08.180 what you're

01:08:08.380 thinking?

01:08:09.520 Nope.

01:08:10.560 Asian

01:08:10.920 American.

01:08:11.740 He was a

01:08:12.380 white guy,

01:08:13.940 but he

01:08:14.220 said, no,

01:08:15.420 now I'm

01:08:15.900 going to tell

01:08:16.580 you what he

01:08:17.060 said.

01:08:18.160 This is not

01:08:18.860 from me,

01:08:19.740 right?

01:08:20.340 Because what

01:08:20.860 he said is

01:08:21.560 super racist.

01:08:23.440 I'm just

01:08:23.960 reporting what

01:08:24.640 he said.

01:08:26.680 He said, 0.99

01:08:28.260 Asians lie 1.00

01:08:29.000 about their 0.99

01:08:29.400 income to

01:08:29.900 save taxes.

01:08:32.660 And I

01:08:33.260 said, what?

01:08:35.580 And I

01:08:36.080 said, yeah,

01:08:36.780 it's so

01:08:37.340 typical that

01:08:38.320 you can

01:08:38.600 count on

01:08:39.080 it.

01:08:39.880 And I

01:08:40.440 said, what?

01:08:42.860 Are you 0.71

01:08:43.460 freaking

01:08:43.760 kidding me?

01:08:45.000 You're

01:08:45.420 going to

01:08:45.560 sign this

01:08:46.040 loan that

01:08:47.140 literally says

01:08:47.940 he can't

01:08:48.320 pay for

01:08:48.660 it?

01:08:50.040 He goes,

01:08:50.780 yes.

01:08:51.600 And then he

01:08:52.500 gave me the 0.99

01:08:53.040 kill shot. 1.00

01:08:53.680 You ready for 1.00

01:08:54.080 the kill shot? 1.00

01:08:55.620 He points to

01:08:56.760 the other side

01:08:57.200 of the office

01:08:57.660 and there

01:08:58.120 was this

01:08:58.540 big bank

01:08:59.040 of files.

01:09:00.600 And he

01:09:00.920 says, go

01:09:01.900 look at all

01:09:02.400 the files of

01:09:03.340 the defaulted

01:09:04.220 loans because

01:09:05.060 it was just

01:09:05.940 all the people

01:09:06.460 who defaulted

01:09:07.400 on their

01:09:07.680 loans.

01:09:08.420 He goes,

01:09:09.100 spend the

01:09:09.580 day there

01:09:10.040 and tell

01:09:11.020 me how

01:09:11.380 many Asian

01:09:12.020 surnames you

01:09:12.660 find in the

01:09:13.200 file.

01:09:16.360 That was the

01:09:16.980 end of the

01:09:17.320 conversation.

01:09:19.260 There weren't

01:09:19.860 any.

01:09:20.820 He said, there

01:09:21.480 aren't any.

01:09:22.360 I've been

01:09:22.680 doing this for

01:09:23.160 40 years.

01:09:24.560 There aren't

01:09:24.980 any.

01:09:27.120 Do you know

01:09:27.700 why?

01:09:27.980 Now, he

01:09:30.320 explained it's

01:09:31.120 not necessarily

01:09:32.140 just that their

01:09:33.380 cash flow is

01:09:34.180 better than

01:09:34.640 they report.

01:09:35.920 It's not

01:09:36.280 necessarily that.

01:09:37.740 It's also

01:09:38.580 some kind of

01:09:40.540 a cultural

01:09:41.160 necessity that

01:09:43.240 if you make a

01:09:43.960 loan, you're

01:09:44.420 paying it back.

01:09:45.640 If you need a

01:09:46.440 second job, you're

01:09:47.240 paying it back.

01:09:48.300 If you default

01:09:49.060 because you

01:09:49.400 simply don't

01:09:49.900 have the money,

01:09:51.080 even after it

01:09:52.200 defaults, they

01:09:54.060 pay it back.

01:09:55.640 Do you know

01:09:55.940 how rare that

01:09:56.480 is?

01:09:57.160 And he told

01:09:57.560 me the story

01:09:58.060 about somebody

01:09:58.580 who couldn't

01:09:59.900 pay back a

01:10:00.400 loan, Asian 0.81

01:10:01.020 American, and

01:10:02.560 it got written

01:10:03.120 off.

01:10:04.380 So his credit

01:10:05.520 was bad and

01:10:06.460 basically everything

01:10:07.980 that could happen

01:10:09.320 bad had already

01:10:10.560 happened and he

01:10:11.260 didn't need to

01:10:11.720 pay it back.

01:10:13.020 So at that

01:10:13.500 point, he was

01:10:14.120 off the hook and

01:10:16.120 he paid it

01:10:16.540 back because he

01:10:19.100 couldn't live with

01:10:21.260 an unpaid loan.

01:10:23.400 Just, no, I'm

01:10:24.460 not going to do

01:10:24.860 that.

01:10:25.440 And he took

01:10:25.920 great, you

01:10:27.540 personal extra

01:10:29.600 work and

01:10:30.300 sacrifice, and

01:10:31.120 he paid it

01:10:31.480 all back, paid

01:10:32.120 back every

01:10:32.860 penny.

01:10:34.060 So here's

01:10:35.560 what I think

01:10:36.100 might be

01:10:36.760 happening.

01:10:37.760 If you tell

01:10:38.380 me that Asian

01:10:39.080 Americans are

01:10:39.960 getting turned

01:10:40.460 down more

01:10:40.980 often, I

01:10:42.700 feel as if

01:10:43.420 maybe lenders

01:10:44.680 stopped doing

01:10:45.420 what that old

01:10:46.220 lender did a

01:10:46.880 million years

01:10:47.360 ago, which

01:10:48.220 is discriminate.

01:10:50.760 He just

01:10:51.120 actively

01:10:51.520 discriminated.

01:10:52.240 but he was

01:10:53.140 discriminating

01:10:53.860 against white

01:10:54.680 people, in a 0.81

01:10:56.380 sense, because

01:10:57.400 he was favoring

01:10:58.480 another group,

01:10:59.620 which is

01:11:00.060 different, I

01:11:00.480 guess.

01:11:01.260 But it could

01:11:02.240 be that the

01:11:04.340 loans are coming

01:11:05.180 in not looking

01:11:06.080 as good and

01:11:07.020 they're being

01:11:07.360 turned down for

01:11:08.080 reasons that

01:11:08.640 are not exactly

01:11:10.020 have anything to

01:11:10.780 do with race

01:11:11.400 whatsoever.

01:11:12.500 So it could be

01:11:13.340 that there's

01:11:13.740 actually no

01:11:14.300 racial component

01:11:15.180 whatsoever.

01:11:16.380 It's just that

01:11:17.340 some loan

01:11:18.320 applications come

01:11:19.200 in looking

01:11:19.600 differently than

01:11:20.240 others.

01:11:21.000 It might be

01:11:21.340 just that.

01:11:22.920 So that's just

01:11:23.660 speculation.

01:11:24.340 I have no way

01:11:24.800 of knowing what,

01:11:26.620 but if you've

01:11:27.740 never heard that

01:11:28.280 story, does that

01:11:29.780 blow your mind?

01:11:31.740 It's sort of a

01:11:32.280 mind-blowing story,

01:11:33.320 isn't it?

01:11:34.920 That's one of the

01:11:35.640 most influential

01:11:36.940 stories of my

01:11:37.940 life, is about

01:11:39.800 the benefit of

01:11:41.340 good character,

01:11:43.860 basically.

01:11:44.800 So the benefit of

01:11:45.980 good character in

01:11:47.320 the Asian

01:11:47.720 Americans got 0.98

01:11:49.220 them a lot of

01:11:49.880 loans.

01:11:51.240 that maybe the

01:11:52.420 paperwork said

01:11:53.100 they shouldn't

01:11:53.460 have gotten.

01:11:54.540 So good for

01:11:55.360 them.

01:11:57.140 Good for them.

01:11:58.260 And by the way,

01:11:59.200 I think that we

01:11:59.940 should address

01:12:00.660 whatever that

01:12:01.580 inequality is with

01:12:02.760 the loan

01:12:03.220 approvals.

01:12:04.420 Somebody needs to

01:12:05.220 dig into that.

01:12:06.220 Because if it's

01:12:06.880 not what I said,

01:12:09.940 what the hell is

01:12:10.600 it?

01:12:11.680 Have you ever

01:12:12.220 met a banker who

01:12:13.080 didn't want to

01:12:13.700 make a loan to

01:12:15.420 a qualified Asian

01:12:16.900 American?

01:12:18.700 Is that a thing?

01:12:20.320 Is there any

01:12:20.980 banker in America

01:12:21.920 who doesn't

01:12:23.560 eagerly love that

01:12:25.640 loan?

01:12:26.460 They love it.

01:12:27.680 So the fact that

01:12:28.500 they're getting

01:12:29.600 turned down more

01:12:30.500 than white people,

01:12:32.120 that is a mystery.

01:12:33.660 I think we need to

01:12:34.580 figure that out.

01:12:35.180 But it might not be

01:12:35.880 the answer that you

01:12:36.660 think it is.

01:12:37.420 It might not be

01:12:38.180 racial discrimination.

01:12:39.620 It just might not

01:12:40.320 be.

01:12:41.120 But I'd worry about

01:12:42.060 it, so I'd look

01:12:42.680 into it.

01:12:43.480 It's worth looking

01:12:44.040 in.

01:12:44.200 All right.

01:12:49.180 Is there any

01:12:49.860 banker that can

01:12:50.500 override AI

01:12:51.300 recommendations?

01:12:52.260 Sure.

01:12:54.180 Maybe not in the

01:12:55.080 long run, but in

01:12:55.900 the short run,

01:12:56.380 yes.

01:13:01.920 Yeah.

01:13:02.360 Yeah.

01:13:02.440 All right.

01:13:09.320 Anecdotes don't

01:13:10.100 matter.

01:13:14.300 2008 crisis was

01:13:15.640 about making loans

01:13:16.520 to people who

01:13:17.100 couldn't pay them

01:13:17.660 back.

01:13:18.540 Yeah.

01:13:18.700 All right.

01:13:22.400 Ladies and 0.98

01:13:22.840 gentlemen, that's

01:13:23.380 all I got for you

01:13:24.140 on YouTube.

01:13:25.120 I'm going to say

01:13:26.720 bye and then talk

01:13:27.720 to my local

01:13:29.800 folks here for a

01:13:31.320 bit.

01:13:32.080 Best live stream

01:13:32.960 you've ever seen.

01:13:34.880 Bye for now.

01:13:36.200 See you tomorrow.

01:13:36.680 Bye.

01:13:36.780 Bye.

01:13:36.900 Bye.

01:13:36.920 Bye.

01:13:37.180 Bye.

01:13:37.320 Bye.

01:13:37.780 Bye.

01:13:38.760 Bye.

01:13:38.820 Bye.

01:13:38.920 Bye.

01:13:39.820 Bye.

01:13:40.820 Bye.

01:13:40.880 Bye.

01:13:40.920 Bye.

01:13:40.960 Bye.

01:13:40.980 Bye.

01:13:41.000 Bye.

01:13:41.080 Bye.

01:13:41.840 Bye.

01:13:41.980 Bye.

01:13:42.960 Bye.

01:13:43.020 Bye.

01:13:43.040 Bye.

01:13:43.060 Bye.

01:13:43.080 Bye.

01:13:43.120 Bye.

01:13:45.080 Bye.

01:13:45.100 Bye.

01:13:45.140 Bye.

01:13:45.160 Bye.

01:13:45.180 Bye.

01:13:47.100 Bye.

01:13:47.120 Bye.

01:13:47.140 Bye.

01:13:47.160 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 28, 2023

Episode 2092 Scott Adams： The ＂Dying Biden＂ Campaign Strategy, Tucker vs NYT, RFK Jr. vs ABC News

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript