Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2190 Scott Adams： Let's Look At The Machinery Behind The Headlines. We Can See The Gears Now

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

00:00:08.660 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:10.860 Today, we're also streaming, just to test things out, on Twitter Live.

00:00:16.760 I might not be looking at the Twitter comments,

00:00:20.080 because when I tested this before I went live earlier today,

00:00:23.900 many of you wanted to talk about my vaccination status.

00:00:26.940 Yes. That's one year ago.

00:00:31.920 We're not talking about that again.

00:00:34.580 So just try to come forward to the future, which I call the present.

00:00:40.060 And if you'd like to increase the enjoyment that you're having now, wow.

00:00:45.760 And by the way, you can watch this show every day on YouTube,

00:00:48.860 and also on the Locals platform if you're a subscriber.

00:00:52.060 I'm not sure if I'll keep doing it on this platform or not.

00:00:55.560 So we'll just test it today.

00:00:57.780 If we like it, maybe we'll do more of it.

00:01:00.720 It's good to see that old periscope look, isn't it?

00:01:04.360 But how about the simultaneous sip?

00:01:07.160 Now, this could be quite the delight for those of you who have never experienced a simultaneous sip,

00:01:11.860 because all you need is a cupper mug or a glass,

00:01:13.700 a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jugger, a flask, a vessel of any guide,

00:01:18.500 fill it with your favorite liquid, not like coffee,

00:01:21.680 and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day,

00:01:25.200 a thing that makes everything better.

00:01:26.540 It's called simultaneous sip.

00:01:28.360 Go.

00:01:28.620 Oh, that was pretty good.

00:01:33.600 That was pretty good.

00:01:35.440 Three times the platform, twice the coffee.

00:01:39.400 Well, I have a suggestion for all of you for whenever you are tweeting or referring to January 6th,

00:01:51.120 because we've been calling it J6, right?

00:01:53.960 J6, January 6th, you know, the, who's the insurrection?

00:01:57.760 But I would rather, I want to reframe that.

00:02:02.880 From now on, January 6th will be called, wait for it, hold on, I want to make sure you're all ready.

00:02:10.400 From now on, January 6th will be called Trump's Raging Insurrection.

00:02:17.480 Trump's Raging Insurrection.

00:02:20.520 It's funnier.

00:02:22.720 Yeah.

00:02:23.360 So he's going to be impeached over his raging insurrection.

00:02:28.420 Which I think impressed the entire world.

00:02:32.780 Yeah.

00:02:33.540 Because I want, I want, every time this comes up, I want to laugh at it.

00:02:38.120 Because I can't take the real news seriously anymore.

00:02:41.140 I mean, can you? 0.98

00:02:42.420 Because the news is just ridiculous. 0.95

00:02:44.180 It's just absurd. 0.91

00:02:45.780 So we might as well have fun with it.

00:02:47.640 Because there's not much else, there's not much else they can do for you.

00:02:52.400 Except entertain you.

00:02:53.380 You know, I think I said this years ago.

00:02:55.580 You know, that the reason that comedy doesn't work anymore is that reality and comedy merged.

00:03:02.640 Comedy only works when it looks different than reality.

00:03:05.280 And it really doesn't now.

00:03:07.200 Like, legitimately, hyperbole aside, it actually doesn't look different, the comedy and the reality.

00:03:14.900 The absurdity levels through the roof.

00:03:19.260 Well, anyway, there's a controversy.

00:03:23.300 There's an AI influencer now who's on, I don't know where she is on Instagram, I think.

00:03:31.040 But it's an AI creation that has photographs and video of a creature, which is not a real creature.

00:03:40.120 It's an AI creature that is, it's branded as artificial.

00:03:44.740 But people are not convinced she's artificial because she looks, well, I called her she. 0.87

00:03:50.540 See how easy this is?

00:03:52.040 I'm literally telling you a story about an artificial entity that is pretending to be a female.

00:03:59.380 And I reflexively refer to that AI as she.

00:04:05.140 Because it looks and acts like a human.

00:04:08.900 If you don't think, and I think Mike Sertovich said this,

00:04:11.340 if you don't think that regular, ordinary human males,

00:04:15.920 if you don't think they're going to have actual deep relationships with these AI creatures,

00:04:20.720 you're wrong. 0.83

00:04:22.740 That people are going to have lifelong relationships with AI.

00:04:27.200 You can see it, it's obvious.

00:04:28.920 Now, I don't know if women will. 1.00

00:04:30.980 I have less insight into what a female brain is like. 1.00

00:04:35.580 But I can tell you that men are going to find the AI versions better than the alternatives.

00:04:40.200 And they're right on the cusp of that.

00:04:44.240 So that should change reproduction in the world pretty much.

00:04:48.880 The virtual influencer is called Milla Sophia.

00:04:52.040 So if you've been sending money to your girlfriend named Milla Sophia,

00:04:57.740 just know that you're one of many people who have done that.

00:05:00.760 Apparently a number of people have offered to send this girlfriend some money.

00:05:06.020 So don't do that.

00:05:07.320 Don't send money to anything that looks good on the screen.

00:05:14.000 I mean, that's a good general rule.

00:05:17.260 All right.

00:05:17.940 Yes, the question Kevin's asking is,

00:05:20.060 is Andrew Tate going to pimp out virtual women?

00:05:23.260 Well, he's out on house arrest.

00:05:25.820 Apparently house arrest is over and Andrew Tate can walk around now.

00:05:29.640 Now, do you remember my, how many remember my prediction about the Tate brothers?

00:05:35.480 That where this would end up?

00:05:37.260 Does anybody remember my prediction?

00:05:40.820 I'm not sure if I said it specifically.

00:05:42.840 That's why I'm asking.

00:05:44.300 I may have hinted at it, but not said it.

00:05:46.820 But what I hinted at was that his level of persuasion skill is not normal.

00:05:54.400 It's just, just way above average.

00:05:57.440 And I didn't think any jail could hold him.

00:06:02.120 Isn't that funny?

00:06:03.480 I don't think any jail can hold him.

00:06:05.880 I think you have seriously a silence of the lambs situation where the prisoner is just more powerful than the prison.

00:06:13.780 And I don't like Andrew Tate, in case anybody's new, new to my live stream.

00:06:19.700 We're not friends.

00:06:21.800 For me, it's personal.

00:06:23.180 I just have a personal beef with him.

00:06:25.240 So, you know, irrespective of his message, you can make your own decision on that.

00:06:30.800 I don't like him personally.

00:06:31.880 But it is also true that his level of persuasion skill, some of it came from me.

00:06:41.920 Unfortunately, I'm at least partially responsible because I know he was following me before he became famous.

00:06:49.220 Or this famous, anyway.

00:06:51.300 So I know he was picking up persuasion tricks, and you can see him implement his persuasion skills.

00:06:57.120 He's really good at it.

00:06:58.100 And my take was that I don't see how a prison, I don't see how he could be convicted unless the system is broken.

00:07:06.620 I think he'll just talk his way out of jail.

00:07:09.800 And so far he's talked his way, you know, out of jail and into home custody.

00:07:15.720 And now he's talked his way out of house arrest.

00:07:19.300 So I don't know what's next, but I'm going to make a prediction.

00:07:24.000 He's not going to go back to jail.

00:07:25.480 Does anybody want to take the other side of that?

00:07:30.040 And I'm saying this with no regard to the evidence and no regard to what he may or may not have done.

00:07:37.260 So it has nothing to do with what he's done.

00:07:39.640 It has only to do with his abilities right now.

00:07:43.540 I honestly don't think a jail can hold him.

00:07:47.120 Isn't that weird?

00:07:48.620 It's weird but true.

00:07:49.740 I don't think any jail can hold him.

00:07:51.180 I think he could talk his way out of any jail.

00:07:52.980 So, and of course, to put anybody in jail, you're going to need something like witnesses.

00:08:01.200 Do you think they're having any trouble finding people to testify against him?

00:08:06.520 They might be.

00:08:08.100 They might be having a lot of trouble finding somebody to testify against him.

00:08:11.380 Because he's persuasive, but also maybe he has too many friends on the outside.

00:08:17.160 So, I don't know.

00:08:19.060 I feel like it would be dangerous to testify against him, even if he didn't do anything about it.

00:08:24.560 He has a lot of people who might take things into their own hands, which would be super bad.

00:08:30.780 But it's a real thing.

00:08:31.960 I mean, it's a real risk.

00:08:33.280 So, I don't know.

00:08:33.980 I just don't think he can be jailed.

00:08:39.440 Superconductivity that I keep talking about that others are trying to reproduce.

00:08:44.140 Give me a fact check on this.

00:08:45.700 But they have reproduced it now, right?

00:08:48.240 Are we yet confident that this is a real room temperature superconductivity situation?

00:08:55.120 Now, I would say there's still, what do we call it, LK99, is the cool, nerdish term for it.

00:09:04.680 Now, the question I've got is whether or not this really can be scaled up.

00:09:11.740 You know, the early reporting was, these are common materials.

00:09:14.880 We have lots of it.

00:09:16.480 We can scale this up, and it will be changing everything.

00:09:19.260 Because once you have superconductivity, you've got quantum computing and lossless, you know, transportation of electricity.

00:09:27.120 And a whole bunch of things become possible in the real world if you can do superconductivity.

00:09:33.160 And it looks like we're there.

00:09:36.320 I mean, if you just take one thing, just take one thing, quantum computing, suppose that's the only thing that changed.

00:09:43.880 And then suddenly your computer's a quantum computer.

00:09:48.260 That's a little bit better than the one you have now, let me tell you.

00:09:52.060 A little bit better.

00:09:53.520 Like, way, way, way better.

00:09:55.860 Now, you combine your AI with a quantum computer.

00:10:00.980 I don't know what we end up with.

00:10:02.980 Who knows?

00:10:03.960 I mean, who knows where that goes?

00:10:05.840 But all bets are off.

00:10:07.860 There's literally nothing that you can predict.

00:10:13.000 I would say that predicting the world in 5 to 10 years is now an exercise in absurdity.

00:10:23.440 That wasn't really always the case.

00:10:25.800 I mean, nobody's great at predicting 5 to 10 years out.

00:10:29.360 But, you know, we were taking seriously things like climate change risk in 50 years.

00:10:34.920 We were acting like 50 years is like a perfectly good amount of time that you can predict things.

00:10:43.000 But, that's clearly nonsense at this point.

00:10:48.520 Can quantum computers do general purpose computing?

00:10:51.060 I believe they can.

00:10:52.980 Can somebody confirm that?

00:10:54.880 The quantum computer can be your general computer, right?

00:10:59.560 I mean, if they got it efficient enough, there's no reason it wouldn't.

00:11:03.280 No?

00:11:04.260 Oh, somebody's saying no.

00:11:05.260 Now, oh, I'm getting fact-checked on this.

00:11:08.940 That it wouldn't be, not yet.

00:11:14.180 Well, no, I understand that at the moment there's special purpose.

00:11:17.960 But that's only because that's all we can make.

00:11:21.360 Isn't the whole point if you can make a quantum computer in an easy way,

00:11:27.320 then it could be your general computer?

00:11:29.520 Am I wrong about that?

00:11:34.260 I think I'm right about that.

00:11:36.320 But I'll take a fact-check on that if I'm wrong.

00:11:38.920 All right, let's move on.

00:11:41.740 Roseanne Barr, who you may know she transitioned.

00:11:47.820 She used to be Bill Barr. 1.00

00:11:49.420 She used to be Bill Barr, Attorney General.

00:11:51.840 But now she's Roseanne Barr.

00:11:53.140 She's identifying as a woman, Roseanne Barr.

00:11:56.840 No, I made that up.

00:11:58.000 That's not true.

00:11:58.800 They're different people.

00:12:00.040 No, no, different people.

00:12:01.860 I made that up.

00:12:05.280 But Roseanne is getting her own show on X, on the rebranded Twitter called X. 0.89

00:12:15.360 And it looks like it's going to be part of a larger platform that's part of Public SQ,

00:12:20.420 or Public Square, which I think is Don Jr.'s, Don Jr. is at least a prominent part of that.

00:12:30.040 So, it looks like there's some kind of a, probably conservative, I assume, conservative-leaning platform.

00:12:38.960 Actually, it's an anti-woke platform is the way to say it.

00:12:41.980 It's an anti-woke platform.

00:12:43.460 And Roseanne's the first one.

00:12:45.400 She's got a six-figure deal. 0.99

00:12:49.560 And I guess we'll see more about that.

00:12:51.540 Now, I did tell you that Roseanne asked me to be on her podcast.

00:12:56.720 And I said yes.

00:12:58.680 I think that would be a week or two.

00:13:00.540 But I don't know if that's part of this, because I don't know if the timing is the same.

00:13:06.560 So, maybe I'm on the old version, not the new version.

00:13:09.760 But we'll find out.

00:13:11.760 All right.

00:13:12.320 So, here's my theme of the day.

00:13:14.200 I call it seeing the machinery.

00:13:16.960 Would you agree that in the past year, especially, although it's been brewing for a while,

00:13:22.500 that you can now see all the moving parts of the, let's say, the effery that's happening to the public?

00:13:32.280 I'll give you some examples.

00:13:35.140 We can see now that, but here's one thing that Joe Biden proved to us.

00:13:40.780 And give me your opinion as I go.

00:13:43.480 I'm going to list a few things.

00:13:44.580 Number one, the existence of Joe Biden as a president proves to us that the president isn't always the one in control.

00:13:54.220 Would you say that's true?

00:13:56.140 Can we see that the machinery says that they can put a figurehead in and still have some kind of functional control?

00:14:04.120 Now, that wasn't 100% obvious to me before.

00:14:07.540 And it might be a special case because of Biden.

00:14:09.940 But we can say with some certainty now that you actually don't need a president with a functioning brain

00:14:15.920 because the people around him will just, you know, fill in for that and maybe they were always in control.

00:14:22.900 So, that's something that's new.

00:14:25.340 If you told me you could have a president who was just not even functional at all,

00:14:29.620 and yet things would just sort of move along, I don't know if I would have believed it.

00:14:34.980 And I'm not sure I would believe it about other presidents.

00:14:37.340 You know, I'm not sure I would say that about Obama, but maybe.

00:14:41.500 Maybe.

00:14:42.740 I know I wouldn't say it about Trump.

00:14:45.680 So, maybe it's more of a Democrat thing.

00:14:47.960 I don't know.

00:14:48.900 Maybe.

00:14:50.180 So, that's one thing we see now more clearly.

00:14:52.820 We saw that with the 50 Intel professionals who said the laptop was Russian disinformation.

00:15:00.940 Now you can see that whole mechanism.

00:15:03.440 That part of the machine is transparent now.

00:15:05.460 So, now you can see the members of the intelligence community in various groups,

00:15:10.980 you can see that they're willing to coordinate for the benefit of Democrat political purposes.

00:15:18.760 Now we know that for sure.

00:15:20.920 And we know it's not onesies and twosies.

00:15:22.760 We can see that they could fairly easily get 50 people with high-ranking intelligence jobs across various, you know, intelligence entities.

00:15:32.260 50 of them would all be willing to sign up for a lie.

00:15:36.360 That shows you the machine, doesn't it?

00:15:38.780 It shows you that our intelligence group is not doing what you think they're supposed to do.

00:15:43.860 They're also deeply involved in domestic politics.

00:15:49.680 And that's as deeply involved as you could get.

00:15:52.320 So deeply involved it may have determined who the president was.

00:15:55.920 So, we see that machinery now and you can't unsee it.

00:15:59.100 It was so clear, so well documented, so obvious, that now you can say, oh, I get it now.

00:16:08.020 The intelligence apparatus and the Democrats are just part of the same machine.

00:16:12.540 You see those gears work together.

00:16:14.600 That wasn't as obvious as it was until the laptop situation.

00:16:19.000 That made it just super clear to everybody.

00:16:22.160 Here's another part of the machine.

00:16:23.500 Learning about how Hunter Biden and the Biden family made their money with this influence, or the illusion of influence, selling,

00:16:37.440 are we not fully informed now how that works?

00:16:43.060 We all now understand that the phone calls don't have to be anything but proving you have access, right?

00:16:50.500 We know that there doesn't have to be a piece of paper, necessarily, saying this is our contract, this is our deal.

00:16:57.900 We all just understand how this works.

00:17:01.120 So, we saw in detail exactly how somebody connected to the current government, you know, when Biden was vice president.

00:17:11.080 We saw how they make money by providing either access or the illusion of access that they charge huge amounts of money for.

00:17:20.500 Because they're big entities with a lot of money, and they want a little bit of edge, and they think they can get it this way.

00:17:27.360 Now, we also saw that the Democrat press was willing to cover up all of this.

00:17:36.620 So, now we can see that the press is a player, not a reporter.

00:17:41.400 We can see that clearly, that the press, the Democrats, and the intelligence agencies, or at least 50 people from them, are all on a team,

00:17:52.340 and they're not on the team that is trying to sell the truth.

00:17:57.440 They're selling a version of the truth, which is just anti-Republican and pro them staying in power and making money.

00:18:03.860 And you see it all now.

00:18:06.680 You know, before, everybody knew that people sold access, right?

00:18:11.820 We all knew that.

00:18:13.000 Everybody knew that, you know, lobbying was kind of dirty.

00:18:17.880 Everybody knew that the people were doing this, you know, foreign agent stuff without registering, you know, sort of Manafort kind of stuff.

00:18:26.600 Everybody knew this was going on.

00:18:28.100 But when you see it so clearly and specifically, where you've got an Archer Daniel, I'm sorry, Archer, Devin Archer, Archer Daniel, Devin Archer,

00:18:40.120 when you have him explaining every gear in the machine, then you can see it, right?

00:18:47.340 Now, and how about the media narrative that turned January 6th into an insurrection?

00:18:55.480 We all got to watch how something that clearly was not an insurrection in any way,

00:19:02.740 because nobody really believes you can overcome a country.

00:19:06.720 You know, nobody thinks you can take over a superpower by trespassing.

00:19:11.060 Nobody.

00:19:12.600 But half of the country was willing to pretend that was real,

00:19:16.860 because the media told them to pretend that way, I guess.

00:19:20.020 Yes. And we, yeah, so we know that the media will change the narrative,

00:19:26.280 and they'll actually make something that was, unfortunately, somewhat normal in American politics,

00:19:32.440 which is a bunch of people protest, and then some of those people get out of control.

00:19:37.360 The most normal thing in American politics.

00:19:40.160 But the media narrative could turn that into an actual insurrection.

00:19:44.360 Or, as I like to say, Trump's raging insurrection.

00:19:47.880 That's right. Yeah.

00:19:51.020 The law enforcement at the Capitol, they tried to beat off Trump's raging insurrection,

00:19:55.940 but they had some trouble.

00:19:59.640 Yeah, Trump's raging insurrection was too much for law enforcement.

00:20:07.160 Then, let's see, you also see, what else do we see?

00:20:10.620 We see that the impeachment process was always fraudulent.

00:20:13.960 You could smell it, and you knew it when it was happening,

00:20:18.020 but now you can see it really clearly.

00:20:20.700 And you can see that they do, in fact, use political processes to cover crimes.

00:20:28.040 We know, for example, that the impeachment, the first impeachment,

00:20:31.680 I think Joel Pollack was saying this, and Breitbart.

00:20:34.520 The first impeachment, the rules of the impeachment were that Republicans couldn't call witnesses.

00:20:42.020 Were you aware of that?

00:20:44.380 Did you know about that when it happened?

00:20:46.160 I feel like I maybe heard it, but I forgot it.

00:20:50.100 So one side, in a, essentially something that's like a fake trial, this impeachment process,

00:20:55.820 one side couldn't call witnesses.

00:20:59.200 Do you know what witness the Republicans would have called?

00:21:03.480 A fellow named Devin Archer.

00:21:05.560 So the entire impeachment process would have been completely different

00:21:10.180 if the Republicans could have called, you know, Devin Archer.

00:21:13.980 Because suddenly, suddenly Trump's phone call to Ukraine makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

00:21:19.700 Once you know the whole, you know, Biden crime family, Devin Archer situation,

00:21:24.120 and you say, wait a minute, Trump got in trouble for wanting to look into that?

00:21:29.320 That's exactly what you want to look into.

00:21:34.140 He got in trouble for asking a question, could somebody help him look into something that was clearly,

00:21:40.220 if it wasn't illegal, it was very inappropriate,

00:21:43.620 and certainly not in the best interest of the United States.

00:21:46.840 And he got impeached for that.

00:21:49.300 Now, do you think his impeachment could be reversed?

00:21:53.140 Because of things like that, you know, things we found out after the impeachment?

00:21:56.760 I think he should be.

00:21:59.120 I think he should be expunged.

00:22:01.640 I think the Devin Archer testimony,

00:22:05.840 and the fact that the Republicans couldn't even ask him to talk,

00:22:09.400 which would have completely changed the context of the entire impeachment,

00:22:13.460 that's good enough to expunge it.

00:22:16.000 All you need is control of the, you know, the bodies, and you can do it.

00:22:21.640 So maybe that'll happen.

00:22:22.840 But would you agree that we can now see the entire machine?

00:22:29.020 You can see it from the gaming that was done during the elections, etc.

00:22:34.440 Now, there's one part of the machine that's left.

00:22:38.100 Do you know all the conspiracy theories that turned out to be true?

00:22:42.140 Remember all those?

00:22:43.480 There was stuff about vaccinations.

00:22:45.400 Well, it turned out to be mostly true.

00:22:47.620 There was stuff about the pandemic.

00:22:49.560 Well, mostly true.

00:22:50.500 Stuff about the Hunter Biden, well, mostly true.

00:22:55.960 Stuff about the impeachment being purely political, well, we knew that, and it's mostly true. 0.78

00:23:01.480 Stuff about the laptop, it turns out it's mostly true.

00:23:05.520 Russia collusion, it was the hoax you thought it was.

00:23:08.820 So, one by one, all of these things that were at one point seemed like hoaxes, they all seemed true.

00:23:16.040 But there's one left.

00:23:18.400 There's one big one left.

00:23:19.840 What is it?

00:23:22.440 One big one left.

00:23:25.580 The election.

00:23:27.800 The election itself.

00:23:31.220 What are the odds that everything you thought was maybe true, turned down to be true, pretty much all of it,

00:23:40.460 but that the election would be the one thing that was like that shining exception.

00:23:45.960 Everything you thought about the machinery of government was true, all the bad stuff, but not that one.

00:23:52.420 Yeah, not that one.

00:23:53.280 And why do you think you don't know more about that?

00:24:00.880 Could it be that if you were a news entity and you questioned the election, you would be sued out of business, like Fox News?

00:24:08.100 And by the way, I'm not defending anything Fox News said.

00:24:11.760 Probably got some things wrong.

00:24:12.960 But everybody does, right?

00:24:16.120 Getting some things wrong is not exactly something you would expect the news business not to do.

00:24:22.660 Of course they do.

00:24:23.720 It's a human business.

00:24:24.860 They get stuff wrong, especially opinion.

00:24:29.600 It's becoming impossible to imagine that the election was fair, honestly.

00:24:34.840 And it's not because I have any information about the election.

00:24:37.800 I don't.

00:24:38.800 I have no information that would say it's unfair at all.

00:24:41.180 All I have is a context.

00:24:44.060 And the context is that every time there was something that could be rigged, it was.

00:24:49.200 Every time.

00:24:50.560 Every part of the government that could be gamed was gamed.

00:24:54.080 Everything that could be hidden was hidden.

00:24:56.920 Everything that could be turned into a narrative to fool you was.

00:25:01.300 Every single thing that could be corrupted, perverted, or made worthless was.

00:25:09.620 All of it.

00:25:10.180 Every time there was an opening, it happened.

00:25:13.280 But not with the election, right?

00:25:15.760 That's the only thing.

00:25:17.040 So the most important thing, the most important thing that we imagine might have had some vulnerabilities.

00:25:25.020 Don't know what they were.

00:25:26.540 But it might have had some.

00:25:28.160 The most important thing is the only thing they didn't try to game.

00:25:31.800 I mean, gaming it too far.

00:25:33.520 We know they gamed it, but within legal bounds, they gamed it.

00:25:39.300 You know, if this is a movie, we're watching what could be the greatest third act of all time.

00:25:47.880 And if it's a movie, there's something that has to happen, which is Trump has to go to court and in court prove that the elections were fraudulent.

00:25:57.580 Or that at least they can't be audited.

00:26:00.440 Or at least that we can't know if it was real.

00:26:02.940 That might be good enough to just prove that it's not fully auditable.

00:26:07.720 If you prove it's not fully auditable, then you can also prove that you don't know what the result was.

00:26:15.860 It can still be certified, and we can still accept it as true.

00:26:20.400 But you won't know.

00:26:23.040 You wouldn't have any mechanism to know.

00:26:25.320 Have you seen the computer code that runs the machines?

00:26:28.600 I haven't.

00:26:30.020 Do I have any reason to think there's anything wrong with that computer code?

00:26:33.340 Nope.

00:26:33.980 Nope.

00:26:34.260 I have no claims of fact to add.

00:26:37.140 I'm just saying we live in a world in which any place there could have been some bad behavior, we found it.

00:26:45.500 Every rock we turned over had something under it.

00:26:50.620 When was the last time we turned over a rock when we thought there was something dirty there?

00:26:55.880 And we looked and looked, and there was nothing there.

00:26:59.320 Well, I guess only when you're investigating some Trump stuff like Russia collusion.

00:27:04.960 In that case, there was nothing there.

00:27:06.400 But those are legitimately hoaxes.

00:27:09.420 There's a difference between a hoax and maybe just being wrong about something.

00:27:17.220 All right.

00:27:17.760 So, now that we can see the machine, will it make any difference?

00:27:22.960 Well, I don't know.

00:27:24.360 Here's some more of the machine.

00:27:26.380 I'm not sure how much credibility I'd put on this thing.

00:27:29.420 Which is, Tucker Carlson had an interview with, I guess, the former Capitol Police Chief, Stephen Sund, and he told Tucker that he thinks January 6th was some kind of a cover-up.

00:27:43.660 And he said, quote, everything appears to be a cover-up.

00:27:48.580 Quote, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it's all watered down.

00:27:56.460 I'm not getting intelligence.

00:27:57.980 I'm denied any support from National Guard, meaning when he was in his job, in advance.

00:28:03.880 I'm denied National Guard while we're under attack for 71 minutes.

00:28:07.900 And then he questioned the leadership of Milley and Pelosi.

00:28:14.120 Now, this is one person's opinion based on, you know, the atmospherics of the time.

00:28:19.680 So, I don't think you should conclude from that one testimony that there was something sketchy going on.

00:28:27.860 But you could conclude by the fact that wherever it was possible for something sketchy to go on, it did.

00:28:34.100 Every time.

00:28:34.740 So, was it possible at all for any of the characters in January 6th to have intentionally withheld intelligence?

00:28:43.960 Or could they have intentionally withheld, let's say, National Guard or other help?

00:28:49.700 Yes.

00:28:50.860 That would be easy to do.

00:28:53.540 It would be easy to do.

00:28:55.960 And every time there was something that was easy to do that would be good for Democrats, they did it.

00:29:01.260 No matter how weaselly and illegal and lying it was, they did it every time.

00:29:07.880 So, is this the exception?

00:29:10.280 Do you think this is the one time that there was like a big opening to do something weaselly that would have been bad for Trump, and they didn't do it?

00:29:17.520 They had an easy opening to make it look worse than it could have looked, and you think that they didn't do it.

00:29:27.080 You think that they wanted to immediately stop the protest so that Donald Trump would have nothing working against them because they immediately shut down the protest.

00:29:35.940 Was that what they wanted to do?

00:29:37.200 Do you think Democrats were like, oh, let's stop this before there's any violence?

00:29:41.060 Well, they live in the real world, and they know that if a bunch of Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats attack the Capitol, their best play is to let them destroy it.

00:29:55.220 That's their best play.

00:29:57.000 Do you think they didn't know that?

00:29:58.900 Do you think that Nancy Pelosi didn't know that their best play was to make it look dangerous?

00:30:06.260 Of course it was.

00:30:07.740 And of course they knew.

00:30:08.640 Is this the only time in all of these observed behavior, is this the first time that they were really operating legitimately and for the best interest of all the people?

00:30:21.480 No.

00:30:22.840 That's not even a thing.

00:30:24.440 I think at that level they don't even think about the public.

00:30:27.640 I honestly think, I mean, I'm reading minds, of course.

00:30:30.700 But they act as though, I'll just say they act as though so I'm not mind reading.

00:30:34.280 They act as though the public isn't even part of the consideration.

00:30:37.500 It's just whatever works.

00:30:42.880 Oh, there's plenty to help for.

00:30:45.180 Yeah, I hope I'm not painting a picture of, you know, all things are lost.

00:30:50.160 To me, the ability to see the machine is the essential step toward change.

00:30:56.460 If we can't agree what's happening, then you can't change things easily.

00:30:59.800 But once you can see it, it's all laid out for you really clearly, well then maybe, maybe you get yourself a new president and maybe something changes.

00:31:10.300 All right.

00:31:11.020 So the big question that we're talking about with the new Trump indictments is, of course, everybody's going to frame it in their own way.

00:31:21.280 So one of the frames is that this would criminalize lying under the narrow situation that a politician lies, but you can show that they knew they were lying.

00:31:34.720 They knew it wasn't true.

00:31:36.680 And therefore some action happened, in this case a conspiracy, some would say.

00:31:40.420 And that the action is really the problem, but the lying was contributing to the action.

00:31:46.560 So it's the action that's the problem, not the lie.

00:31:50.720 But in politics there's always action.

00:31:55.400 Somebody's always acting.

00:31:57.040 They're either voting differently or they're complaining or threatening or doing something.

00:32:01.300 So if you criminalize lying that somebody else says you knew, because that's the important part, somebody else gets to decide what was in your head.

00:32:14.060 That's never good.

00:32:15.880 Somebody else gets to decide what you were thinking when you lied.

00:32:19.780 Were you thinking it was true or were you thinking it wasn't?

00:32:24.500 I don't know.

00:32:25.780 So I'm not sure.

00:32:27.380 I guess Bill Barr said, you know, it's not so much about that.

00:32:32.480 The lying is not the problem, I think Bill Barr would say.

00:32:35.660 It's that it was part of a conspiracy.

00:32:38.360 So it was just, you know, one element of the conspiracy.

00:32:41.300 So if they prove the conspiracy, it's not about the lying.

00:32:46.980 I'll buy that.

00:32:48.920 I think there are two narratives that are, neither of them are quite accurate.

00:32:53.480 I think the truth is somewhere in between.

00:32:57.380 That it's not about, it's not about his free speech.

00:33:01.520 It's about, allegedly, some conspiracy things to over, or to delay or overturn the election.

00:33:08.860 But it's also true that if you create a precedent that the things he said, he, he, according to other people, he knew it was a lie.

00:33:18.620 And therefore, bad things happen because of it.

00:33:22.660 If you let that standard become a precedent, I guess all politicians go to jail pretty quickly.

00:33:30.680 So I think both sides are right.

00:33:33.360 That it's not, that it's not about free speech, but the precedent it could set would be about free speech.

00:33:40.480 Does that make sense?

00:33:41.960 The case is not about free speech per se.

00:33:44.960 It's just that it would accidentally have this side effect.

00:33:48.860 I'm seeing no's. 0.97

00:33:52.560 No?

00:33:53.840 Yeah.

00:33:54.460 With the legal stuff, here, let me give you a better, this is the most useful thing I could do.

00:34:00.020 Have you noticed that as soon as there's legal stuff mixed with politics, that there are only some people who are qualified to talk about it?

00:34:08.340 So when Jonathan Turley talks about it, he knows politics, and he knows the law, because that's his job, and he's a great writer.

00:34:18.460 So what he says is way more useful than what other people are saying.

00:34:22.620 Same with, I keep mentioning Joel Pollack when we're talking about these topics, because he has a legal background, follows the news, is a great writer.

00:34:33.340 That's a perfect combination.

00:34:35.320 Ben Shapiro.

00:34:36.040 Yeah, he's legal, right?

00:34:39.500 He's got a law degree, Ben Shapiro.

00:34:43.820 Dershowitz, again, right?

00:34:46.120 Dershowitz is good.

00:34:47.340 Mike Cernovich, legal background, knows politics, knows how to tweet better than anybody.

00:34:55.000 Yeah, so there are some people you should follow, and I'm not sure I'm one of them.

00:34:58.640 I would really, really favor your information toward the ones who have some, at least a little bit of a law degree background.

00:35:09.600 You're going to get, you're going to get, you're going to get much better.

00:35:15.280 All right.

00:35:17.260 Wow.

00:35:20.220 I just saw a meme there.

00:35:22.240 All right.

00:35:22.640 Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal was talking about this, about the lying.

00:35:30.320 All right.

00:35:30.660 To me, it seems like the precedent would be way, way, way too dangerous.

00:35:38.800 I can't imagine that the Supreme Court would ever get behind this.

00:35:45.100 Do we all assume that it ends up in the Supreme Court and gets thrown out?

00:35:48.340 And the only issue is whether there's a timing thing, you know, whether it's before or after an election or something.

00:35:56.440 I don't think anybody thinks he's going to jail.

00:35:58.960 Do you?

00:36:01.180 How many think he's going to go to jail?

00:36:08.560 Here's why I think he won't.

00:36:11.380 If you put him in jail, there's going to be physical violence.

00:36:16.300 Would you agree?

00:36:18.340 I don't think you could avoid physical violence if he goes to jail.

00:36:23.120 Yeah.

00:36:24.060 Now, I'm not recommending it.

00:36:25.820 I want to say as clearly as possible, I do not recommend any physical violence for anything, except self-defense.

00:36:34.480 But it would be unavoidable at that point.

00:36:36.820 Because at that point, the country would be lost, and you actually would be Boston Tea Party time.

00:36:43.300 That would actually be an actual revolution.

00:36:45.100 I would consider that, I wouldn't be violent myself, and I wouldn't recommend it, but I would understand it.

00:36:54.780 I would certainly understand it.

00:36:57.360 All right.

00:36:57.720 There, just to change the topic a little bit, because we're getting tired of all this legal stuff.

00:37:10.800 Over in Germany, they've built some houses, this passive house thing, by road architects.

00:37:16.680 And they've figured out how to basically seal the home really tight, insulate it really well, and use almost no AC or warming.

00:37:30.340 And it's passive.

00:37:32.140 So they're just, they're piping heat in.

00:37:35.660 They make sure the sun is the right orientation.

00:37:37.940 The windows are super sealed.

00:37:39.500 And they've got, I don't know the technology, but they've got some kind of a, what do they call it?

00:37:46.720 A energy recovery ventilation, ERV.

00:37:51.080 And then there's something that cleans the air because it's so sealed and blah, blah, blah.

00:37:55.540 But here's the point.

00:37:58.500 It's a 2,500 square foot house that costs maybe 15% more than a normal house.

00:38:05.380 But, of course, that would probably go down if they make a lot of them.

00:38:08.760 And it doesn't require heating and cooling.

00:38:12.580 I mean, just imagine that.

00:38:14.660 So we're worried about, you know, the future of homes and the future of climate change.

00:38:20.720 But if you can get a really, and they look really good.

00:38:24.060 They look great.

00:38:25.220 They're well-designed and everything.

00:38:26.900 If you can get a 2,500 square foot home that you walk in, it just looks amazing.

00:38:32.020 I mean, it's better than a normal home.

00:38:33.320 It's just high design.

00:38:35.480 And you didn't have to pay for energy.

00:38:39.040 It's going to be really tempting for people to, you know, want those homes.

00:38:44.140 I've been saying for a long time that the big economy of the future for America is going to be rebuilding our homes because all of our existing homes are built wrong.

00:38:54.540 Existing homes are not built for our lifestyle or our energy profile.

00:38:59.260 They were built when energy was cheap.

00:39:03.340 And we didn't know how to build homes as well.

00:39:06.780 And our lifestyles were different.

00:39:09.140 Imagine building a home today without a home office.

00:39:11.740 If you build a home today, two home offices is the right number, right?

00:39:17.500 Two adults.

00:39:19.020 The odds that you need two home offices is pretty high.

00:39:21.820 So everything that we do about building today, let's take it easy, like an easy one.

00:39:28.980 It's hard to get your Wi-Fi to work throughout your home.

00:39:32.020 But if you build it in the first place with the understanding that it needed some, you know, Wi-Fi boosters or whatever, you're good.

00:39:40.000 So there's almost nothing about the way a home is built today that is optimized even compared to what we know how to do today.

00:39:47.440 So I think it's going to be gigantic rebuilding from old homes, you know, tearing down the old ones and building the new better ones.

00:39:55.720 So I saw a tweet by John Byrne Murdoch.

00:40:03.340 He showed two charts and it shows this huge trend line change where sometime around the pandemic, of course, the trust in science by Republicans, you know, dive toward the ground.

00:40:19.120 And the trust in science by Democrats zoomed toward the sky.

00:40:23.560 I mean, just really, and John Byrne Murdoch says it's a tragic story in two charts.

00:40:33.240 He says, now there's a big partisan gap for trust in science.

00:40:38.340 And he says, the Republicans are now essentially the anti-science party, while Dems are stridently pro.

00:40:47.660 Is that what's happening?

00:40:50.220 Is it pro-science versus anti-science?

00:40:53.560 That's what's happening?

00:40:56.440 Let me put a different interpretation on the same data.

00:41:02.120 Same data.

00:41:03.320 I accept the data.

00:41:04.980 How about this interpretation? 0.99

00:41:06.860 Or are Republicans the anti-bullshit party and Democrats are brainwashed sheep? 1.00

00:41:13.300 Yeah. 1.00

00:41:13.880 Maybe one doesn't believe bullshit and the other are brainwashed sheep. 1.00

00:41:18.140 And what do you call brainwashed sheep? 1.00

00:41:20.940 Pro-science, apparently.

00:41:23.020 Apparently, pro-science is what you call brainwashed sheep. 0.99

00:41:28.000 Now, I like to say I'm pro-science, so I'm probably a brainwashed sheep.

00:41:32.760 But if you trust anything from science after the pandemic, how do you explain yourself?

00:41:40.180 How do you explain trusting science in 2023?

00:41:45.260 Now, there's no conflict between these following statements.

00:41:50.640 All right.

00:41:51.040 If you don't understand this, you missed the whole pandemic.

00:41:54.340 Two statements.

00:41:55.440 There's no conflict.

00:41:56.320 Number one, the scientific process is the number one best way to figure out what's true and what isn't.

00:42:04.520 Everybody with me?

00:42:05.960 The scientific process, the process, not the people, the process is the best way to find out what's true.

00:42:14.500 Okay.

00:42:14.720 Now, we can say that that's true. 0.99

00:42:17.740 Can we also say that most, the majority of the science that's presented to us by people is bullshit? 0.99

00:42:28.800 Most. 0.99

00:42:29.880 Yeah.

00:42:30.360 That's actually proven. 1.00

00:42:31.600 Do you know what proved that most of it's bullshit? 0.99

00:42:34.080 The scientific process. 0.99

00:42:36.680 Because they looked into it and they counted how many papers are reproducible.

00:42:42.880 Turns out, not most. 1.00

00:42:45.580 It's mostly bullshit. 1.00

00:42:48.200 The thing that we're presented as science by scientists and by the media is mostly bullshit. 1.00

00:42:55.020 If you're a Democrat and you still think that the things scientists are telling you are probably true, 0.98

00:43:03.400 I feel really sorry for you.

00:43:06.400 I mean, actually, like, I have empathy for that.

00:43:09.720 Imagine going through life thinking that the things that they're telling you are true.

00:43:14.720 Sometimes they might be true, but it's going to be totally unknown when they tell you.

00:43:21.300 So it can be true that science is your best way to know what's true.

00:43:24.640 Well, at the same time, you can observe clearly the machine.

00:43:28.880 And the machine uses science selectively to brainwash you.

00:43:34.920 So if you tell me, does science tell you what's true, if you do it right, the answer is yes.

00:43:40.640 But then you have to get a little bit real world about it. 0.94

00:43:43.820 And then you say, but are bad people using science to launder bullshit under the cover of science? 0.98

00:43:52.040 Yes. 0.99

00:43:52.920 They're called politicians for the most part.

00:43:56.780 Yes.

00:43:57.180 So to imagine that those two views are not consistent is something, I guess, you'd have to be a Democrat to understand.

00:44:08.060 All right.

00:44:09.760 And then the larger point, the data is largely useless in 2023.

00:44:14.700 But Democrats don't know it yet.

00:44:16.580 So science would be a lot better if the data that they used was all accurate. 0.99

00:44:24.280 But the one thing we know for sure is that the data is bullshit. 0.98

00:44:28.140 We know that. 0.99

00:44:29.840 Right.

00:44:31.000 Just in general, all of our data, pretty much all of our data is suspect.

00:44:36.260 Some of it might be right.

00:44:38.680 But how would you know?

00:44:40.480 There's so much that's wrong that we don't have any way to pick out the ones that are right.

00:44:46.000 Not the public.

00:44:47.360 Right.

00:44:47.560 If you were a scientist reproducing a study, maybe yes.

00:44:50.560 And then even then, even if you're a scientist and you reproduce a study, you still don't know if it's correlation or causation.

00:44:59.560 There's still some interpretation that you end up putting on top of it.

00:45:04.160 All right.

00:45:04.640 Here's a good example of why I always say analogies don't work.

00:45:08.660 Have you ever heard me say that?

00:45:10.400 If you're making an argument and your argument depends on an analogy, you don't have an argument.

00:45:17.600 Right.

00:45:18.520 And let me say this as clearly as possible.

00:45:21.000 If you have an argument that depends on logic and facts, and the facts and the logic are good, that's pretty solid.

00:45:28.560 You might want to put an analogy on top of your logic and facts to make it easier to package and describe the story.

00:45:36.200 But the analogy is not the argument.

00:45:38.660 The argument still has to be the logic and the facts.

00:45:42.320 The analogy is just to story ties it, you know, make it easier to convey.

00:45:47.360 Right.

00:45:47.520 So don't confuse the analogy with the data and the logic.

00:45:53.260 One is just for sales, just for selling something, and the other is for understanding something.

00:45:59.780 So Al Sharpton ran into that problem when he said, can you imagine, he was talking about January 6th and Trump and trying to, quote, overthrow the election.

00:46:10.040 And he said, can you imagine Jefferson and Madison trying to overthrow the government?

00:46:15.200 Yeah.

00:46:16.200 Yeah.

00:46:17.200 Yeah.

00:46:18.200 Yeah.

00:46:19.200 He actually said, can you imagine the American revolutionaries having a revolution against the government?

00:46:30.800 And somebody tried to save him on Twitter and say, Scott, don't you realize that that was a dictatorship?

00:46:41.800 He's not, they weren't overthrowing a democratically elected government.

00:46:45.920 To which I say, what's that got to do with anything?

00:46:51.800 If you don't like your government, you don't like your government.

00:46:54.940 It doesn't matter how it got there.

00:46:57.280 Right.

00:46:57.740 If you're a revolutionary, you're a revolutionary. 0.99

00:46:59.820 But it's the dumbest thing a public person has said in a long time. 0.94

00:47:06.500 And that's including everything that Kamala Harris has said. 0.98

00:47:12.940 Can you imagine Jefferson and Madison?

00:47:15.440 And I guess my comment about this, I made a snarky comment and it got picked up by a bunch of publications.

00:47:22.380 So if you tweet well, you'll get quoted.

00:47:26.980 All right.

00:47:27.220 CNN is creating the narrative that Putin is waiting for Trump to get reelected because Trump will be friendly to Putin.

00:47:39.460 Were you expecting, were you expecting that?

00:47:41.820 Of course.

00:47:42.920 Of course.

00:47:44.060 Remember the machinery?

00:47:46.940 CNN is just part of the machine.

00:47:49.760 So this part of the machine has to turn because Trump is getting closer and closer to re-election.

00:47:55.100 So they got to turn up the part that says that he's blowing Putin.

00:48:00.660 Oh, no, he's a lover of Putin.

00:48:03.100 I think they're BFFs.

00:48:04.860 They're pen pals.

00:48:06.220 I think they have a sexual relationship or something.

00:48:09.200 Right.

00:48:09.460 So you got to turn that up as they started today.

00:48:12.760 They started today.

00:48:13.900 Now, here's my take.

00:48:15.100 If Putin is, in fact, waiting for Trump, why is that a problem?

00:48:22.980 Other than it'd be good if things wrapped up sooner.

00:48:26.180 But why is that a problem?

00:48:28.020 Why are we complaining about it?

00:48:34.380 Doesn't that tell you that he thinks that Trump can end the war?

00:48:40.180 Here's what I see.

00:48:41.660 I see two entities that because of whatever their domestic situation is, they can't make peace.

00:48:49.100 They can't.

00:48:49.760 You need you need a large outside force to make them do it so they can say, well, we didn't want to.

00:48:57.000 But those Americans and NATO, they just forced our hand.

00:49:01.040 What could we do?

00:49:02.180 We had to make it make a deal.

00:49:04.740 So, of course, he's waiting.

00:49:07.140 What do you think Putin wants to do?

00:49:08.880 Do you think Putin wants to just surrender?

00:49:12.260 So he can't win and he can't just give up because I would look weak and terrible.

00:49:16.900 Well, of course, he's waiting because Trump's the only one who says he's going to negotiate an end to the war.

00:49:22.980 You don't think that Putin wants an end to the war?

00:49:25.180 Of course, he does.

00:49:26.860 So the fact that Putin thinks that Trump would be a better leader in this situation and the fact that he agrees with, you know, maybe a third of the public or so now.

00:49:38.220 That's not necessarily a bad thing.

00:49:40.340 Let Putin, let Putin say he'd prefer a president that will make a deal and let him get the deal.

00:49:52.200 So.

00:49:54.380 Chris Christie's in Ukraine now.

00:49:56.880 Oh, my God.

00:49:58.600 Do you know what you're not going to see?

00:50:00.940 Trump go to Ukraine.

00:50:02.820 You want to take any bets on that?

00:50:04.860 Does anybody think that Trump's going to visit Ukraine?

00:50:07.940 Not a chance.

00:50:09.500 Not a chance. 1.00

00:50:10.980 It would be stupid. 0.99

00:50:12.800 I mean, I hope so. 1.00

00:50:13.880 I mean, I hope he doesn't.

00:50:14.840 It would be ridiculous if he did.

00:50:18.060 But I guess Chris Christie's got a, I don't know.

00:50:21.080 I don't know what game he's playing.

00:50:22.800 He's obviously not going to be president or vice president.

00:50:29.040 Senator Feinstein, who's, I believe her age is 300.

00:50:33.400 She's, she's, she's over 300 years old and she's given power of attorney to her daughter for her personal affairs.

00:50:42.520 So she's so incompetent that her daughter has power of attorney to make all of her, you know, legal decisions and stuff. 1.00

00:50:51.780 But she's still a sitting senator and has not resigned. 0.85

00:50:55.620 So she's one of the people running your country after having admitted she can't run her own life.

00:51:01.720 Because she has somebody else in charge of it.

00:51:05.180 And we're okay with that.

00:51:08.260 Why?

00:51:10.040 Because we can see the machine.

00:51:11.660 We're not really okay.

00:51:12.800 You can see the machine.

00:51:14.740 The machine is just not making it a story.

00:51:18.240 So unless Fox News mentions it, it doesn't come up.

00:51:22.980 So they just sort of live with it like that's okay.

00:51:26.620 You see the machine.

00:51:27.800 All they care about is the vote.

00:51:32.660 Wow.

00:51:34.180 So Joe Rogan is becoming quite outspoken about the political situation.

00:51:40.940 And he actually says that the Carrie Lake election in Arizona, he thinks he sees some real reason for, let's say, distrusting the results.

00:51:53.940 And thinks it's a banana republic that Trump got arrested.

00:51:59.240 Now, has Joe Rogan gone completely, no Democrats watch his show?

00:52:08.580 Is that what's happened?

00:52:09.700 Has he turned into just like a thorough, you know, right-leaning conservative figure?

00:52:17.380 Because I was sort of surprised that he took such an aggressive public stand.

00:52:22.620 I agree with him on everything.

00:52:24.920 But I was surprised because it seems like it would be...

00:52:30.400 I made the mistake of looking at one comment from X.

00:52:35.460 Let me read it.

00:52:36.800 It's in all caps.

00:52:38.000 Love, Joe R.

00:52:40.800 He tells the truth and is not crazy like Scott.

00:52:44.180 Scott is jealous.

00:52:46.820 Who isn't jealous of Joe Rogan?

00:52:51.520 Okay.

00:52:52.540 Is there somebody here who is not jealous of Joe Rogan?

00:52:55.520 I mean, seriously.

00:53:00.860 You're not?

00:53:02.580 What's wrong with you?

00:53:04.080 Maybe you should see somebody about that.

00:53:05.620 I feel like the most natural human feeling would be that you would have some jealousy about somebody who's just killing it.

00:53:16.580 You know, just killing it in life.

00:53:17.920 Especially if they're doing something that you also do, but they do it better than it's been done in the history of, you know, humanity, which is Joe Rogan right now.

00:53:27.940 I mean, he's basically number one in human history for doing the thing he's doing.

00:53:33.620 Do you think I should not feel any jealousy about that?

00:53:37.200 I would say jealousy is the wrong word, though.

00:53:42.480 I think competitive.

00:53:45.160 Yeah.

00:53:45.340 I was just sort of auditing my own feelings about it.

00:53:48.900 I think I know what jealousy and envy feels like.

00:53:51.920 But it feels more like it gets my competitive instinct up.

00:53:56.620 Makes me want to do better.

00:53:57.480 I spend a lot of time.

00:53:59.000 I spend a lot of time thinking about what Joe Rogan does and then thinking about what I do and saying, all right, if that's the best in class, you know, what can I do that's more like that?

00:54:13.440 You should all do that.

00:54:15.340 If you're looking at Joe Rogan and you're not saying, I need to up my game, because whatever he's doing is working, you should.

00:54:24.140 So it doesn't feel like envy or jealousy because I don't have, like, the bad feeling about it.

00:54:29.480 It's more of a positive, hey, he can do this, I can do better.

00:54:34.640 You know, this is the perfect internet dad situation.

00:54:37.240 The fact that Joe Rogan, I find nothing but inspiring, and I find that he just makes me want to work harder.

00:54:45.660 Give me more of that, please.

00:54:49.180 Please, more of that.

00:54:51.260 So if he makes me envious or jealous, in your opinion, in your mind-reading opinion, but I process it as just wanting to work harder because he's setting a standard, then I think we're all good, aren't we? 1.00

00:55:02.480 We'll ban you for being too stupid. 1.00

00:55:10.560 Mute. 1.00

00:55:10.920 It does make you wonder about the personalities of the all-caps shouters. 1.00

00:55:20.120 Wouldn't you like to meet one in person?

00:55:22.460 Just to see what they're like in person.

00:55:23.820 I've been thinking about doing that.

00:55:26.540 If I could get just one of my trolls, like, I've got one troll who comes on, I think it's been changing accounts and stuff, to tell me that I killed my stepson by neglect.

00:55:40.020 And I keep wondering, I would love to meet that person in person, like, actually I would.

00:55:46.640 Because I just want to know what's going on.

00:55:48.720 Like, are they, is this somebody who's broken all the time and they just treat everybody like this?

00:55:56.040 Or are they so, you know, weak and powerless that if they can bother somebody who's, you know, got a lot of viewers and they feel like, oh, I did something, I made a difference in the world.

00:56:07.080 Or are they actually just like totally broken trolls and they get pleasure out of, you know, creating any pain? 0.90

00:56:15.200 Just sadists. 0.95

00:56:16.320 I think they're sadists.

00:56:17.820 What do you think?

00:56:19.660 Do you think they're political or just sadists?

00:56:23.380 I think they're sadists.

00:56:29.480 How in the world did that happen?

00:56:32.720 Oh.

00:56:33.820 I think the front person came back. 0.99

00:56:36.500 We're blocking all caps people because they're silly sadists. 0.97

00:56:42.420 But don't take it personally. 0.98

00:56:44.660 All right.

00:56:45.260 What else is happening?

00:56:47.820 So I asked this question.

00:56:49.700 How long before we learned Biden's corruption is the only reason for the Ukraine war?

00:56:55.780 Has anybody asked that question yet?

00:56:58.580 Or I feel like, I feel, feel like we're, we're dancing around that question.

00:57:04.160 Have you heard anybody in the news say that directly?

00:57:07.680 That we wouldn't be in the war if we had a different president because we had a president who couldn't say no to Ukraine. 0.89

00:57:15.560 So here's the thesis.

00:57:18.400 The only way the war could have been avoided is if somebody could give a hard no to Ukraine and Russia. 0.61

00:57:27.320 Trump.

00:57:27.620 Trump, Trump, Trump could give a hard no to both of those countries and say, you're not going to have a war.

00:57:35.900 I think Trump could have told them what they're going to do.

00:57:39.580 Here's a, here's a Trump.

00:57:41.180 All right.

00:57:41.900 Putin, you've amassed your forces on the border.

00:57:44.500 You're not going to move them.

00:57:45.680 Well, what if I do?

00:57:48.980 No, you're not.

00:57:50.660 Well, we might.

00:57:53.240 You're not.

00:57:55.400 But why are you saying that?

00:57:57.480 Are you not hearing me?

00:57:59.540 You're not.

00:58:02.360 And I don't even think Trump would tell him what he would do.

00:58:06.420 I mean, he might throw in some threats, but I think he could just threaten him away.

00:58:10.760 He could literally say, you have no idea what I'm going to do to you.

00:58:14.220 You, you don't know the depth that I would be willing to go to.

00:58:17.920 If you move one soldier over that line, all the rules are off.

00:58:23.020 What would Putin do if he heard that?

00:58:25.180 Imagine Trump saying, I'm just, you know, gaming it through.

00:58:28.000 Imagine if Trump said, if you move one soldier's foot over that line, all the rules are off.

00:58:36.180 If I were Putin, I would immediately stop.

00:58:39.140 Because I don't know what that means.

00:58:41.140 What does that mean? 0.97

00:58:41.920 Like, it could be they're going to kill Putin. 0.99

00:58:46.520 Yeah, maybe, maybe he'll be assassinated. 0.98

00:58:48.500 I mean, he would, he would have no idea what that means.

00:58:51.960 He would probably mean it.

00:58:53.320 You'd probably not think it was nuclear war, but you never know. 0.99

00:58:55.960 Now, imagine, and then, of course, it'd be easy for somebody like a Trump to tell Zelensky, we're not giving you jack shit. 0.98

00:59:06.880 I just told you, he's not going to put one foot over the line. 0.96

00:59:09.720 Because if he does, all the rules change.

00:59:14.040 So, could, now this is all hypothetical.

00:59:18.180 It's easy to be, you know, 20-20 hindsight, backseat quarterback, backseat driver, all that stuff.

00:59:25.640 But it does seem to me that we had the only president who didn't have a chance of doing that.

00:59:30.980 Because, from what we've learned, it would seem that Ukraine has some leverage over Biden.

00:59:40.440 Does anybody disagree with that?

00:59:42.780 It seems to me obvious that Ukraine, let's say Zelensky specifically, would have knowledge of the Biden workings in Ukraine, and probably greater knowledge than we have so far.

00:59:58.320 You don't think that Biden knows that if he doesn't do everything Zelensky wants, there will be some information that comes out that's bad for Hunter?

01:00:08.620 Does anybody think that we know everything there is to know about Ukraine?

01:00:12.780 Don't you think it's obvious that Ukraine has some blackmail over Biden at this point?

01:00:19.340 It's not obvious?

01:00:21.580 Now, even if he doesn't, imagine he doesn't.

01:00:26.140 Suppose we've heard everything there is to hear, and if we heard more, it would just be sort of more of the same and not change anything.

01:00:33.540 Maybe.

01:00:34.880 But are you comfortable and confident that your president is working for the benefit of America?

01:00:41.280 I'm not.

01:00:42.780 Tell me one other time, you tell me one other time that America's been in a war, you know, in this case we're supporting it without soldiers, but tell me one other time America's been in a war when you weren't sure if the commander-in-chief was actually on your team.

01:01:01.120 Think about it.

01:01:04.120 Has that ever happened before?

01:01:08.160 No, not El Salvador.

01:01:10.200 Not Iraq. 0.98

01:01:11.340 No, here's the thing.

01:01:12.580 Even if you say, you know, Vietnam, Iraq, they were all bad wars, they were all allegedly for the benefit of America. 0.96

01:01:20.340 We thought, I think people genuinely thought Iraq was some kind of a threat, even if they didn't know there was weapons of mass destruction. 0.89

01:01:31.440 It still looked like, you know, at least we could get their oil or something.

01:01:35.720 To me, it didn't look like the commander-in-chief was non-American.

01:01:40.000 It looked like maybe just making some bad moves.

01:01:45.240 But this looks like Biden protecting his family, and it doesn't look like it had anything to do with America.

01:01:53.400 That's what it looks like.

01:01:55.080 Not reading his mind, because I can't, but if you look at the actions, you'd say, this does not look like somebody who's on the side of America.

01:02:01.660 It looks exactly like somebody protecting his family, and it looks like the entire war is based on that.

01:02:10.720 So how many days has gone by since our crack news industry has found all the other people who agreed with Joe Biden that the Burisma prosecutor should be fired?

01:02:24.340 Because remember, he said he was doing it because all the other entities, you know, the international entities, show me one.

01:02:32.240 Put one on camera.

01:02:34.400 Put any one of the people who agreed with him before he did it on camera.

01:02:38.980 And just say, so you thought this was a good idea.

01:02:43.000 Can you tell us how much you independently knew about this prosecutor?

01:02:47.440 Were you really following this prosecutor in Ukraine?

01:02:51.580 And then what you probably would hear would be something like this.

01:02:56.260 Well, it's not something I was following closely, but we trust that the United States was.

01:03:01.660 So when the United States says you should back us on this, we kind of got in line because we trust them.

01:03:09.020 There was nobody who agreed with this.

01:03:11.760 You would have heard from them.

01:03:13.820 You don't think that Biden would have put somebody on the news, you know, his team.

01:03:18.300 You don't think they would have produced at least one person to say, hey, you know, I'm I'm Danish and all everybody over in Europe knew this guy had to go.

01:03:27.640 Because that was the story we were told, right?

01:03:31.000 And then you put on the French guy. 0.50

01:03:32.400 It's like, oh, yes, we, we.

01:03:34.100 Oh, the French. 1.00

01:03:34.940 We were so against this prosecutor.

01:03:37.400 We are so glad that he was finally removed.

01:03:40.220 Canada.

01:03:41.340 Oh, those Canadians.

01:03:43.060 They just wanted that Ukrainian prosecutor removed.

01:03:46.980 Yeah.

01:03:47.760 Yeah.

01:03:49.980 Paul gets blocked.

01:03:56.800 Paul.

01:03:58.380 I block people for saying that Scott is finally waking up.

01:04:03.180 So you're, you, you were, uh, I think I brought, blocked two or three people every day for saying he's finally waking up. 0.96

01:04:17.140 No, I'm not finally fucking waking up.

01:04:20.900 Maybe you're finally listening to my show. 1.00

01:04:24.560 But stop saying that dumbass NPC bullshit. 1.00

01:04:27.980 He's finally waking up. 1.00

01:04:29.380 He's finally waking up.

01:04:31.320 All right.

01:04:33.180 Um, let's say.

01:04:37.500 All right.

01:04:37.720 So here's a, uh, question of the day is, did Devin Archer say that he was selling the illusion of excess or was that only in the question?

01:04:48.060 Who said that, that, uh, Devin Archer was selling only the illusion of excess?

01:04:54.500 Turns out that was Dan Goldman's question.

01:04:57.080 Were you only selling the illusion?

01:04:59.120 Well, but you were selling the illusion, right?

01:05:01.440 It was more about the illusion.

01:05:03.300 Could you please agree with me that it was just the illusion?

01:05:06.140 And then, uh, I think, uh, Devin said something like, well, not just the illusion.

01:05:14.660 So he wasn't quite buying the, you know, the, uh, completeness of that statement that it was the illusion.

01:05:20.460 So, uh, of course, we will argue about whether that's true or false that, uh, Devin Archer said he was selling the illusion.

01:05:30.340 And then here's another part of the machine that I want to call out.

01:05:33.480 Uh, so Phil Bump, who writes for the Washington Post, uh, says that, uh, uh, Devin Archer said the opposite of what Republicans claimed.

01:05:46.860 So, so, uh, Phil Bump for the Washington Post.

01:05:51.100 How many, how many recognize that part of the machine?

01:05:55.000 How many know the name Phil Bump and the Washington Post?

01:05:59.120 Are you familiar with it?

01:06:00.140 All right, let me explain.

01:06:03.620 Phil Bump is the Adam Schiff of Eric Swalwell's, who writes for the Washington Post, which is the toilet paper of the news.

01:06:20.680 So, did I get that?

01:06:22.340 So he's the Adam Schiff of Eric Swalwell's, who writes for the Washington Post, which is the toilet paper of the news.

01:06:30.140 All right.

01:06:30.920 When, when you see Phil Bump come out with something, it means that the Democrats are having a tough time and they couldn't find anybody who would lie enough.

01:06:40.820 Or, let me soften that.

01:06:42.780 I won't say lie.

01:06:44.000 Couldn't find anybody who would torture the narrative enough that they could get support for their team.

01:06:50.580 So, if you have to rely on Phil Bump, it means you've lost everything.

01:06:55.660 It's like you're in trouble.

01:06:58.020 Who can we get to say something good about us?

01:07:01.100 Everybody else is hiding because the news is not in our favor.

01:07:04.420 Can we get somebody who will just say anything?

01:07:07.420 Just say anything.

01:07:08.840 And especially somebody in the Washington Post, because Democrats still think that's a legitimate publication. 0.99

01:07:13.940 Imagine being a Democrat and not knowing that the Washington Post is bullshit. 0.99

01:07:20.040 Imagine not knowing that. 0.99

01:07:21.720 Everything would be confusing.

01:07:23.460 Imagine thinking that the New York Times is intending to tell you objective truth.

01:07:29.980 Imagine thinking that's even their intention.

01:07:33.520 How confused would you be about everything?

01:07:36.120 Nothing would look right.

01:07:37.580 So, anyway, part of the machine you should recognize is the Phil Bump play.

01:07:41.580 Maybe I'll even call it that.

01:07:42.680 I'll call it the Bump play, where your narrative has gone so wrong, you can only find one person who's willing to say you're right.

01:07:51.540 Phil Bump.

01:07:53.020 By the way, Phil Bump gave me a hard time when the Washington Post canceled me.

01:07:58.040 He's very much one of the bad guys.

01:08:01.220 At least in my world, he's a bad guy.

01:08:04.660 So, yeah, he has the lowest credibility of probably anybody in the writing business.

01:08:11.620 That's my opinion.

01:08:13.340 Um, just my opinion.

01:08:16.420 And, wait a minute.

01:08:17.540 Do I go to, can I go to jail for my opinion?

01:08:20.760 Hold on.

01:08:21.380 Let me see.

01:08:22.220 I had an opinion.

01:08:24.320 If somebody else thinks I lied, and then they cancel their subscription, but that wouldn't be politics.

01:08:33.420 I don't know.

01:08:33.900 I'm confused.

01:08:35.480 I don't know.

01:08:37.140 Looks like I just lost my picture on X.

01:08:40.960 Aw.

01:08:44.600 So, uh, my, my live stream on X just ended on its own.

01:08:50.540 Uh, that's weird.

01:08:54.720 All right, so I don't know if that was a technical problem or what, probably.

01:08:59.320 Uh, Rasmussen did a poll about, uh, Biden and the possibility of an impeachment.

01:09:03.380 And the support for impeaching Biden has gone, which direction did it go?

01:09:10.440 After all the Devin Archer stuff came out?

01:09:12.600 Are people more or less willing to, less willing, less willing, yeah.

01:09:19.540 Does that make sense to you?

01:09:23.640 Does it make sense that there's less support for impeachment?

01:09:29.400 Compared to the beginning of the year.

01:09:33.260 All right.

01:09:34.500 Here's how you could explain it.

01:09:37.640 He's, he's closer to the end of his term.

01:09:41.480 I, I think there might be less support for impeachment if he's not going to be around very long,

01:09:46.820 and it's obvious he's not going to be the next president.

01:09:49.540 I think if he were a real risk to be the next president,

01:09:52.880 then maybe people would have, uh, you know, feel differently.

01:09:59.140 So I think it's time.

01:10:00.720 But I also observe that every time a political leader comes under fire,

01:10:06.500 their base ramps up the support.

01:10:09.940 So do you think it's just a combination of their, their base, uh, ramping up support?

01:10:15.160 Because, you know, their, their guy is under pressure.

01:10:17.520 And the fact that he's closer to retirement anyway.

01:10:21.940 Yeah.

01:10:22.660 It could be the, just the vagaries of polling.

01:10:26.080 You know, polling's getting harder and harder to do.

01:10:28.580 Uh, but Rasmussen has, you know, looked at these numbers pretty closely.

01:10:32.820 They look like real opinions.

01:10:34.660 It doesn't look like, you know, somebody's gaming the system.

01:10:37.540 So we'll see.

01:10:41.880 Don't impeach Biden.

01:10:43.080 It will only backfire.

01:10:44.840 You might be right about that.

01:10:46.860 I get, I don't know if I've ever, have I given an opinion yet?

01:10:50.500 Have I ventured an opinion on impeaching Biden?

01:10:53.560 I don't remember if I have.

01:10:57.700 Um, so let me form an opinion right now.

01:11:01.280 It does seem to me that the Republicans could take the high ground and say,

01:11:07.220 this is clearly impeachable, but we'll settle for expunging Trump's impeachment

01:11:12.160 and reset us to where we were before, before this ugliness.

01:11:17.560 Right?

01:11:17.960 Because what you don't want is both sides perpetually impeaching each other,

01:11:22.420 which is where we're heading.

01:11:24.900 So if the Republicans impeach, they've now set the standard that all presidents get impeached

01:11:30.220 the moment, the moment Congress, you know, is, uh, in a position to do it.

01:11:36.600 Meaning the other side has the majority.

01:11:38.960 So the Republicans could take the high ground.

01:11:43.140 They could say, uh, the Trump impeachments were illegitimate and they expunged them.

01:11:51.020 Let's say they get a majority, expunge them.

01:11:53.720 And then say, we don't want to re, we don't want to recreate the same problem that the Democrats did.

01:11:59.080 We do believe that, uh, Biden's behavior is beyond the pale.

01:12:03.420 We've described it to you in detail, but let, let the voters decide.

01:12:07.960 Now, there are two, two schools of thought, and I'm not entirely sure which one is right.

01:12:16.360 So I'll just put them out there for you.

01:12:18.000 One school of thought is that you push every advantage you can and you try to destroy the

01:12:23.880 other side in every way you can, no matter what.

01:12:27.180 And that would imply impeaching.

01:12:28.580 Um, I know, I hate that point of view.

01:12:33.700 I don't know that it's right strategically.

01:12:36.600 I don't know that it's the right strategy, but I understand, you know, I, I respect it.

01:12:41.100 I understand the thinking.

01:12:42.440 I do understand that you got to push hard or somebody is going to push you.

01:12:46.300 I get it.

01:12:47.180 Um, but you don't want to use the same tool for every different situation.

01:12:52.960 This might be a special case because the other thing you could say is that Biden is no longer

01:12:58.200 coherent.

01:12:59.980 You can say that impeaching somebody who wouldn't know he's being impeached is buying you nothing.

01:13:06.300 Oh, that's, that's the good high ground.

01:13:08.000 The high ground would be you don't impeach somebody who's that degraded.

01:13:12.900 Oh, that's it.

01:13:14.500 That's it.

01:13:15.160 That's the narrative.

01:13:15.820 The narrative is Republicans don't do this.

01:13:19.300 And by the way, you, you can't impeach somebody who couldn't defend himself.

01:13:25.580 That, that is a good frame because it's actually true.

01:13:29.980 I don't think in my opinion, I don't think you should impeach somebody who's that degraded.

01:13:35.980 I think, I think you either time him out, you know, just replace him in the normal order

01:13:41.440 of things, or if his own team wants to take him out sooner, that's their own decision.

01:13:47.500 But having the Republicans press somebody who's just really not capable at this point

01:13:52.260 feels like, you know, just beating a baby harp seal.

01:13:57.420 It just feels like it's not a fair fight anymore.

01:14:00.880 Now, I get it that he, that Biden is still fighting hard.

01:14:05.380 So, you know, he shouldn't get a free pass, but you might have a better framing of saying

01:14:10.160 you're above it.

01:14:12.100 Saying you're above it might be exactly what the, what the country wants to hear.

01:14:16.580 Do you think the country wants to hear, we've got to stop doing the impeachments?

01:14:23.100 I think people would say they want to hear it, but I don't know if they do, because they

01:14:27.860 might like impeaching the other seat, other team, but not their own team.

01:14:32.520 Now, they expect Republicans to be weak.

01:14:35.680 Yeah, but is it weakness?

01:14:37.280 So here, here's the central question.

01:14:40.120 Is trying to impeach Biden showing strength or weakness?

01:14:46.580 Because to me, if, if, let's say somebody has a mental weakness and they come up and

01:14:51.540 slap you in the face, would you be showing strength by hitting the back or strength by 0.95

01:14:58.060 saying, okay, I can take a hit. 0.99

01:15:00.060 Let's deal with it.

01:15:01.120 Let's deal with this as humans.

01:15:02.740 Which one makes you look strong?

01:15:06.340 Yeah, you really have to, you have to think this through because I think you could sell

01:15:10.620 Biden as, as too degraded to impeach.

01:15:14.160 And that's actually a stronger, that's much stronger messaging, I think.

01:15:20.920 But you're right.

01:15:22.240 It all, what, the only factor is what the public perceives.

01:15:26.740 If the public perceives that's too weak, then I guess it wouldn't work.

01:15:31.880 But I don't know that they would.

01:15:33.320 I see somebody calling themselves Rob Reiner, but not the real one.

01:15:43.740 You're fine with President Kamala and might say it's about time?

01:15:49.020 You're not the real Rob Reiner, are you?

01:15:51.340 I don't think so.

01:15:52.120 All right, slimy Joe, I don't know.

01:16:03.440 Yeah, in my analogy, the crazy person is someone who, they can defend themselves.

01:16:12.260 I mean, they did the first slap, but it just wouldn't be a fair fight.

01:16:15.560 So it's all about it not being a fair fight, and that's all.

01:16:20.920 So you should not take the, so here's a perfect example. 0.97

01:16:25.960 If my argument was the analogy, then that's weak.

01:16:31.660 But I don't need the analogy to make the argument that you don't want to attack a weak person

01:16:37.220 in public, right?

01:16:38.980 You don't need the analogy.

01:16:40.220 So here's the analogy, it's just packaging the point.

01:16:42.760 It's not making the point, it's just packaging it.

01:16:46.220 So don't argue the analogy, argue the logic of it.

01:16:51.500 Does that make sense?

01:16:53.860 Don't argue the marketing of it.

01:16:56.140 That's just, the analogy is just an easy way to remember it.

01:16:58.700 Just think about the logic of it.

01:17:02.300 All right, 81 million, how weak is he?

01:17:07.260 Impeaching Garland might make sense.

01:17:11.120 I do wonder about him.

01:17:13.620 There are some things that Garland needs to explain to all of us, wouldn't you say?

01:17:22.640 All right.

01:17:26.560 Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that is all I needed to do today

01:17:30.500 to achieve the greatest live stream you've ever seen so far today.

01:17:36.340 And YouTube, thanks for joining.

01:17:40.260 I would say thanks to the people on X, but they appear to have left on their own.

01:17:46.400 And see you tomorrow, YouTube.

01:17:48.640 Thank you.

01:17:48.780 I TVs,ieu, for right now.

01:17:49.200 Thank you.

01:17:49.820 Thank you.

01:17:50.100 Thank you.

01:17:50.700 Thank you.

01:17:51.580 OK.

01:17:51.660 Good.

01:17:52.180 Thank you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - August 04, 2023

Episode 2190 Scott Adams： Let's Look At The Machinery Behind The Headlines. We Can See The Gears Now

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript