Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2452 CWSA 04⧸22⧸24

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

00:00:11.180 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer time in the history of the

00:00:15.240 13.9 billion years of this universe and before that. But if you'd like to take this up to a

00:00:22.900 level that no one's ever seen, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard chalice

00:00:27.060 Stein, a canteen jug or a flask of vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:31.680 I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day

00:00:35.860 that makes everything better. It's called the Simultaneous Sip. It happens now.

00:00:44.840 Yeah, we're all good now. It's all coming together.

00:00:51.500 All right, let's look at the news, the silly stuff and the serious stuff.

00:00:57.060 Well, I like to follow the AI news on several accounts on the X platform. One of them is

00:01:04.380 Rowan Cheung, who's a good follow. C-H-E-U-N-G, Rowan. Rowan Cheung. Anyway, he reports that

00:01:13.640 Apple is reportedly building a LLM, so an AI, that will be completely on the device.

00:01:21.440 So your phone will not have to talk to anything to be smart. It will be AI on its own.

00:01:31.140 And that could be a really big deal if you're not sure why, because first of all, the speed

00:01:36.300 would be completely different. If you've had the experience of trying to have a conversation with

00:01:41.420 an AI, here's my impression of it. Hey, AI, how are you this morning?

00:01:50.540 I am very good. How are you? Well, I'm pretty good, too. What's the news today?

00:01:56.120 Okay. The weather will be 59 degrees. And that awkward pause just completely ruins the

00:02:07.740 conversational element. You know you're talking to a computer because of the pause. But if

00:02:14.240 it runs all locally, and it's got the same speed as conversational speed, it's going to

00:02:21.360 be pretty awesome. All right. And it will give you better privacy, presumably.

00:02:28.600 Are you following the story of Grace Price? So she's the teenage kid who's, well, I don't

00:02:35.520 know, teenage. Is she still a kid? I don't know if she's 18 or not. But she's got a documentary

00:02:42.220 about how her lifestyle and food especially are giving us cancer. And she had a stat that

00:02:48.900 she has from a source. She didn't make it up herself. It says that up to 95% of cancer

00:02:54.540 is caused by your lifestyle and environmental factors. And there's a pool of studies that

00:03:01.080 show that that's the case. Does that sound right to you? Yeah. Grace Price is her name.

00:03:09.340 Do you think that 95% of cancer is caused by lifestyle and food? It's not impossible. Yeah.

00:03:17.140 To me, it sounds high, but not crazy. It could be. It could be that high. But here's what I

00:03:27.640 feel about her. You know, when Greta was talking about climate change, I thought to myself, this

00:03:35.020 isn't really helping because I want to hear from scientists and people who know what they're

00:03:39.480 talking about. But then when Grace Price does her thing, I'm totally on board. Should I be using the

00:03:48.360 same standard with her as I do with Greta? Or is it because I think that Greta might be wrong and I

00:03:57.320 think that Grace Price is right that I'm judging her expertise by just confirmation bias? And the answer

00:04:05.660 is, yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. But I'm aware of it. You know, sometimes the best you can

00:04:12.700 do about your own bias is just to do a little audit and say to yourself, all right, if this situation

00:04:19.800 were a little different or if this person telling me were a little different, would I be receiving

00:04:25.320 this differently? And the answer is yes. Yes. Yeah. So basically, I'm hearing what I want to hear

00:04:32.160 from Grace Price. And so to me, it all looks very scientific and factual. And by the way, I really

00:04:39.040 think that. But I'm also aware that if I were wrong, I would think the same thing. So I've got that

00:04:46.860 little bit of just a little bit of self filter, but it's not stopping me. I still say she looks right

00:04:54.200 to me. But just be aware of it. Well, I think the concept, the topic of loneliness is becoming a

00:05:03.880 bigger and bigger issue. And I think there's no end in sight for that. There's nothing that looks

00:05:10.420 like it's changing it immediately. It will get fixed, like everything. We'll fix the loneliness

00:05:15.940 problem. But even Kathy Griffin was saying in public, and somehow I think this is useful.

00:05:23.860 I like it when public figures talk about their own experience. I like it less when public figures

00:05:31.240 tell me what kind of apples to eat and stuff like that, because I think they're outside their

00:05:36.000 expertise. But when somebody just tells me about their own experience, and it's some universal

00:05:40.760 relatable thing, yeah, yeah, do that, please. So here's what Kathy Griffin says. And by the way,

00:05:46.720 I remind you, I know that a lot of you have a political opinion about her that's negative.

00:05:51.480 But I've worked with her. She was the voice of Alice in the Dilbert animated show. And I really

00:05:58.740 like her. So Kathy Griffin in person, very, very likable. You'd like her to. Anyway, she says,

00:06:05.780 I guess she got divorced recently. She says, divorced women, I'm talking to you. I am four

00:06:10.640 months divorced, and I feel weak because I just can't get used to waking up alone in the hotel

00:06:14.800 room, blah, blah, blah. And I'm having trouble adjusting. Any ladies out there, how did you

00:06:23.060 get to a place where you can enjoy waking up alone? And she has some dogs. She brings one with her,

00:06:27.480 she says. Now, without dwelling on her specific case, I like the fact that she could be a famous

00:06:35.440 public figure. And that she can say, with great vulnerability, that loneliness is like a,

00:06:42.640 it's really a crippling problem for a lot of people. Now, the only thing I can add to this story

00:06:47.260 that would be useful is that, as you know, I have a subscription service on the Locals platform,

00:06:55.340 scottadams.locals.com. Many of them are watching right now. But I also do a, for the subscribers,

00:07:02.800 I do a private man cave just about every night from my garage slash man cave. And although I

00:07:11.140 didn't design it this way, it wasn't designed for this purpose. There's a good rule in marketing

00:07:17.140 that the audience tells you what your product is. Have you ever heard that? You don't tell what the

00:07:23.120 audience, you don't tell your customers what your product is. You try. I mean, that's what marketing is.

00:07:28.660 But in the end, they tell you what the product is. They tell you why they bought it and what it's

00:07:33.480 good for and why they're going to buy it again. And apparently the man cave turned into a lot of

00:07:38.820 people who don't have anybody to talk to during the day. Yeah, something like a personal experience.

00:07:45.820 Because when I do the man caves, I'm just interacting with, with the comments the entire time.

00:07:51.300 So it's, it's like a conversation for shy people. Like if you're not brave enough to go out and like

00:07:57.260 make a friend or join a group or, you know, be part of some large organization where you just meet

00:08:02.500 people, you can do it with me. So I've, I've sort of morphed my ambitions for the man cave, which

00:08:10.140 honestly was just for me. I started doing the man cave just because I thought it'd be nice to

00:08:16.520 chat with people and it'd be fun. But I've, I've learned that it's importance to several hundred

00:08:22.880 people is that sometimes it's the only human like experience they have during the entire day.

00:08:29.200 The only human experience. So it feels like a necessity at this point. So I'd invite any of

00:08:36.380 you who want to subscribe to that. It's a pretty much every night at different times, but California

00:08:42.700 time, usually between 4.30 and 6.30, I start it. Anyway, RFK Jr. was at a Michigan rally and he

00:08:51.580 says provocatively, I'm going to put the entire U.S. budget on blockchain so that every American can

00:08:57.360 look at every budget item in the entire budget anytime they want, 24 hours a day. And then you

00:09:04.460 can see if things cost too much or were wasted money. Now I like where that's heading. And I love

00:09:12.320 how RFK Jr. gets earned media. Now, whether or not this specific idea is ever implemented,

00:09:20.400 don't you love the fact that he said it in public? That this is what I call the, the bad idea.

00:09:27.100 That's a good idea. Meaning that in sort of Hollywood writer's terms, sometimes you throw on a bad idea

00:09:34.840 to give you something to react to and say, well, not that, but it reminds me of something that would

00:09:39.820 actually work. So I love the fact that he's throwing out this idea. If you ask me, is blockchain the right

00:09:47.080 way to do it and all that? I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I might, my first instinct is blockchain

00:09:53.680 would probably just slow it down. And I don't know exactly what you're buying by having it on the

00:09:58.320 blockchain. So I'd have questions about the specifics, but I love the fact that he's putting

00:10:04.020 it out there and it's provocative and it makes, it turns into a story. So he gets all this free

00:10:09.760 publicity. I'm talking about it in a positive way, but I would go further. If you want to control the

00:10:17.100 government, build a dashboard. If you want to control the whole government, build a dashboard.

00:10:26.780 One dashboard that shows you the key political things, the budgets, the status, the laws that are

00:10:32.520 being, you know, coming, who voted for what, but you'd have to design it so well that it's not

00:10:38.060 overwhelming. The way to do it wrong is there'd be a solid page of government boring data and you'd

00:10:44.580 have to look for whatever you wanted and it'd be just so, so boring and busy. You couldn't use it.

00:10:51.080 But suppose you open it up and it was a, let's say four to six charts that just showed you the

00:10:58.720 direction of things. Let's say one of the charts is crime. So you could click on it and then you

00:11:05.780 could explode it by city. Maybe you could look at it by, you know, um, Democrat versus Republican.

00:11:11.700 That'd be a little more provocative, but I'd love to do that to find out whose policies seem to be

00:11:17.620 working. And imagine if you could just drill down on all of those questions. And then at the bottom,

00:11:23.180 you could get the pro the best pro and con argument on that topic. So the data itself doesn't tell you

00:11:31.040 the story. You still need the interpretation, but you want the best ones. So imagine if you have that,

00:11:36.800 um, dashboard that anybody, any citizen can log into and you could just see everything that's going on

00:11:43.740 money-wise. Um, I think it'd be amazing. Yeah. Um, anyway,

00:11:52.740 so I think whoever builds that dashboard will necessarily control the world because what you

00:11:59.340 put on the front page will be what everybody cares about. So effectively you could front run all of the

00:12:05.780 news. You can, you can make the, the news entities, uh, useless by simply having a dashboard that

00:12:13.580 wouldn't be the news per se, but if you were the one who controlled what got highlighted and what

00:12:18.880 got, you know, maybe put down in priority, you would effectively control the country.

00:12:24.780 Because if you wanted to highlight, for example, we wasted a bunch of money on this thing,

00:12:28.240 you just put it on the front page and say, oh, it's just the dashboard. So that's how easy it

00:12:33.160 would be to control the whole country. Um, Rasmussen did some polls on whether people thought Trump

00:12:41.060 was going to get a fair trial in New York city. 42% of likely U S voters think that it's likely

00:12:48.140 Trump will be able to get a fair trial. 42%. I don't know how good you are at math, but let

00:12:55.340 me fill you in. 42 is less than half, less than half, less than half of the citizens polled in

00:13:03.060 the United States, voters, likely voters don't believe that, uh, it's even possible to get a fair

00:13:10.060 trial in New York city if you're Trump. Now, how many people do you think say not only would Trump

00:13:19.580 get a fair trial, um, but it's very likely? What percentage do you think say it's very likely

00:13:25.940 Trump will get a fair trial in New York city?

00:13:28.540 Let's, let's see how close you can get on this. Guess. Very good. Very good. Yeah. A lot of you

00:13:39.680 are guessing 25% and it's 27%. It's 27. Yeah. But I'm going to round that off and say you're 25 is

00:13:47.320 correct. And once again, your, your brilliance, if not your sex appeal is coming through again.

00:13:53.540 Let, let me say that the sapio, uh, sapio sexuals who, uh, were attracted to intelligent

00:14:01.900 people are probably just having quite a time now because when they see how smart you are,

00:14:06.180 that you can answer a question like that with no prior knowledge, you just all knew it was around

00:14:11.080 the corner. Amazing. Amazing. But, uh, 51% thinking Trump won't get a fair trial and, uh, 31% say

00:14:22.180 it's not at all likely. Now here's my thing. If you have a situation in which the general public,

00:14:31.540 which is pretty much paying attention because it's Trump, they are paying attention. If more than half

00:14:40.180 say he can't get a fair trial, how in the world do you put him in jail if he's convicted?

00:14:46.180 If more than half of the people watching say it's probably not fair, how do you do that? You can't,

00:14:55.140 you can't maintain the system. If you put him in jail while we're watching, more than half of the people

00:15:00.760 thinking it's unfair or very likely to be unfair. So it seems to me that should be, uh, grounds for

00:15:08.920 challenging it, but I don't think legally it is, is it? I go back to the, uh, uh, the interesting story

00:15:16.840 of how, um, the speed limits are determined in residential neighborhoods. I think I've told you

00:15:24.920 this before. Maybe it's just a California thing. I don't know, but the way they determine the speed

00:15:29.000 limit in a new road, if it's a residential, not a, not a freeway, cause those are just standard speeds,

00:15:35.160 but, uh, in the neighborhoods, they'll actually monitor how people actually drive before they

00:15:40.440 put up the speed limit signs. And they say, okay, it looks like people just naturally think they can

00:15:45.320 drive 45 on the street. So we'll lower it to 35 cause we know they'll cheat a little bit.

00:15:51.480 So the idea here is that you create a law that you believe people will accept as reasonable

00:15:59.400 because you looked at all the reasons subtracted 10. Everybody knows you subtracted 10.

00:16:04.520 Everybody's happy. So a very good way to run a country is to see if people think it would be

00:16:09.960 fair and then do the thing that most people think would be fair. That's stable. But if you do the

00:16:16.440 thing that most people literally majority think is not likely to be fair and you do it right in front

00:16:22.680 of them, that's your worst case scenario, worst case scenario. They're doing that right in front of us.

00:16:28.920 Well, let's talk about the plot to make Bidenomics look good. Zero Hedge is talking about, uh,

00:16:37.400 commercial real estate foreclosures, their, their highest level in a decade. I don't know

00:16:43.240 how big a deal that is yet. If you say the highest in a decade, because we don't, we do go through,

00:16:49.480 you know, periods of better and worse for real estate, but, uh, it's not good. It's certainly

00:16:55.080 not good. And a lot of people ask the question, why don't they just turn them into public housing?

00:17:02.520 You know, why don't you just turn all these, uh, offices into, um, condos?

00:17:08.200 And the answer is the only way that would work according to a Goldman is if you drop the prices

00:17:14.760 50%. So in other words, you can charge way more for a business office per square foot than you can

00:17:23.720 for a condo. So yes, it's physically possible to change them into housing, but you would lose your

00:17:30.840 entire economic point of it. So actually you can't. The only way you can do it is if I suppose,

00:17:37.560 you know, everybody who owns these goes broke and then the value of the thing goes down and then

00:17:42.040 somebody buys it for a penny on a dollar and then they can turn it into residential housing.

00:17:46.680 So, uh, also wrong plumbing as somebody is pointing out. Now, anything can be fixed.

00:17:53.160 Yeah. Wrong plumbing could be turned into right plumbing at some expense, but very expensive.

00:17:58.120 All right. Uh, but it does look like as zero hedge notes, uh, that the fed and everybody

00:18:06.600 are probably trying to just push the problem forward so that Trump's in office when it collapses.

00:18:13.960 It looks like a setup. It looks like they know it's going to collapse. And if they can just hold it

00:18:20.920 off until Trump gets elected, it's his problem. Cause I think 90% of politics is hoping that the

00:18:28.520 economy did well during your, your rule. So you can say is what you did. Cause I honestly,

00:18:35.400 I can't really think of anything that Bidenomics did. I mean that, you know, in theory, it lowered

00:18:41.640 some drug prices, but I don't think that's like, you know, resounding through the economy in general.

00:18:48.120 So a lot of it is, uh, you know, this is a, the Dilbert filter on things, things happen because

00:18:53.240 they're going to happen anyway. And then the leaders take credit for it. That's the way the

00:18:56.920 real world works. People take credit for things that were going to happen anyway. It's that's how

00:19:01.880 everything works. Ontario, the wait is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived.

00:19:08.680 Golden nugget online casino is live bringing Vegas style excitement and a world-class gaming experience

00:19:14.600 right to your fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting signing up is fast and

00:19:20.280 simple. And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots

00:19:25.320 and top tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that

00:19:30.920 can turn any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at golden nugget online casino.

00:19:36.360 Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel

00:19:41.240 the thrill of real-time action all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you

00:19:46.600 can go for the gold at golden nugget online casino gambling problem? Call connects Ontario 1-866-531-2600.

00:19:55.720 19 and over physically present in Ontario eligibility restrictions apply.

00:19:59.560 See golden nugget casino.com for details. Please play responsibly.

00:20:05.320 So let's check in on the plot to assassinate Trump. Now, as you know, the plot to assassinate

00:20:11.880 Trump is to make it look like an accident. So they're trying to talk him up as a threat to democracy

00:20:19.240 so that lots of people have a reason to kill him because they think he's Hitler. So first you create

00:20:25.240 the motivation and you brainwash, you know, millions of people into thinking, oh my God, if I can stop

00:20:30.760 Hitler, I can do it. So that part we see in action. That's the whole he's trying to ruin democracy thing.

00:20:37.560 Here's AOC talking about it. She said, Trump, who is not, he seeks to dismantle American democracy.

00:20:45.640 I am taking that personally, very seriously, because we will not be able to organize for

00:20:50.360 any movement toward anything if we are facing the jailing of dissidents. This is the kind of

00:20:55.640 authoritarianism that he threatens. We have to take it seriously. The jailing of dissidents.

00:21:02.120 Dissidents. Where have I seen something like that happen before? The jailing of dissidents.

00:21:10.040 Well, a dissident would be like a protester. A protester. Where have I seen a protester being put in

00:21:17.080 jail for protesting? Oh, the entire January 6 hoax in which the thoroughly corrupt members of Congress

00:21:25.800 who should all be in jail, the ones on the January 6 committee, should definitely be in jail.

00:21:30.360 And if Trump only does one thing and he puts them all in jail, for real crimes. I don't want him to

00:21:37.800 make up any crimes. It has to be a real crime. But that would be one of the best things to happen

00:21:42.360 in the country. And if it ripped the country apart, I'm okay with that. Totally down to that.

00:21:49.640 So here's the thing with somebody calling your bluff.

00:21:51.800 You've got to call them on it. It's your only choice. Otherwise, they own you.

00:21:59.480 If people can scare you and bluff you and threaten you and make you change what you do,

00:22:04.600 well, they own you. If you don't want to be owned, you've got to punch them in the teeth,

00:22:10.600 so to speak. Not really. No violence. So obviously the January 6 people were jailed for being dissidents.

00:22:19.560 This is another case we've seen so many of the Democrats accusing Republicans of exactly what

00:22:25.240 they're doing as they're talking. As she's talking, her team is putting dissidents in jail.

00:22:31.640 As she's talking. Now, what would be the example of where any Republican has put a dissident in jail?

00:22:41.880 I can't think of any. Can you think of any? Even one? Oh, maybe Assange. But that wasn't really just

00:22:50.760 a Republican thing. And he wasn't a citizen, so that's a little bit different. And we didn't put him

00:22:58.360 in jail. So that is different. All right. So part one of trying to kill Trump is going well

00:23:08.440 for the Democrats. So because the Democrats can say this out loud without being challenged,

00:23:14.040 at least without being challenged by their own team, they can say that Trump is trying to dismantle

00:23:20.680 democracy. Now, as Mike Benz has taught you, that creates the predicate so that the intelligence

00:23:27.880 people can do everything that they would do internationally to other countries they can

00:23:33.480 do internally. Because, hey, if you're trying to save democracy, there's, you know, you got to pull

00:23:38.680 out all the stops. So this is when you see the Democrats say he's trying to get rid of democracy

00:23:47.080 because it's an authoritarianism, because of his authoritarianism, you should interpret that as

00:23:53.880 an op. It's part of the brainwashing of America. And it's to get him killed or jailed. And that's

00:24:00.680 what it is. And there's no other way to see it, really, if you're even a little bit aware of what's

00:24:05.560 happening. So that's now, how about the plot to jail him? So Jonathan Turley is talking about that.

00:24:13.800 So if they don't jail him and get him killed in prison, they're going to try to kill him on the

00:24:18.200 outside by making people think he's Hitler, and also by taking away his secret service protection.

00:24:25.400 So the Democrats are trying to do all three. Paint him as Hitler, take away his secret

00:24:29.720 service protection, and just as an insurance policy, try to put him in jail on fake charges

00:24:35.960 or trumped up charges. So Jonathan Turley is talking about

00:24:40.840 the fact that Bragg, the DA, is going to start talking to David Pecker, who is the head of the

00:24:51.800 National Enquirer, who is part of the story. Now, as Turley points out, Pecker's part of the story

00:25:00.840 has nothing to do with the charges. Do you understand that? So Pecker had to do with the

00:25:07.640 the suppressing of the story of Stormy Daniels, but there are no charges and no law broken to

00:25:16.840 suppress the story. So nobody's in trouble for suppressing the story. And the one and only thing

00:25:22.840 that David Pecker knows is that part, that there was an effort to suppress the story about Stormy

00:25:29.480 Daniels. But since there's no crime involved with that, and it doesn't tell you anything about the

00:25:33.960 other crimes. Why is that the first witness? Why would he be the first witness if nothing he has

00:25:40.920 to say is relevant to any of the crimes that are being charged? Well, because you're watching a porno,

00:25:49.080 and all pornos start the same. So Bragg is the fluffer, and his job is to get

00:25:56.520 to get the Pecker situation all firmed up. So he's got to get that Pecker situation all firmed up.

00:26:06.840 So Bragg being the fluffer, he'll get that going. And that's really just to prepare you for the

00:26:12.680 fucking we're all going to get. So you always start by firming up the Pecker before giving the good,

00:26:19.240 hard fucking that the public is waiting for. And Trump, of course. So that makes sense.

00:26:26.040 Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, the fake news is having trouble supporting their own fake polls, because

00:26:35.640 here's a current poll that was presented on Meet the Press.

00:26:41.640 So their own people are presenting their own results, it looked like. And I read this on Eric

00:26:49.960 Abernanti's post. He's a good follow, too, on X. So here are some of the things. So comparing

00:26:59.480 Trump to Biden on handling a crisis, Trump is up 46 to 42. Who has a strong record as president,

00:27:07.960 Trump has better, 46 to 39. Who is competent and effective? Trump is better, 47 to 36.

00:27:15.320 That's a pretty big difference in competent and effective. Dealing with inflation and cost of

00:27:20.600 living, Trump by a mile, 52 compared to 30. And then has the necessary mental and physical health,

00:27:28.520 Trump by a mile, 45% to 26. Now, I don't think you need to brag about 45% and think that you're

00:27:35.960 mentally and physically capable. But in the context of politics, there's a big difference.

00:27:44.040 It does suggest that even the Democrats think that Biden is degraded. Now, imagine, if you will,

00:27:51.720 that you've polled the public on each of these individual qualities of a president,

00:27:56.920 and they do look like the important ones, right? Handling a crisis, strong record, competent and

00:28:02.760 effective, mentally healthy, physical, dealing with inflation. Those are important things.

00:28:08.760 That's all the big stuff. And Trump dominates all the big topics. So wouldn't that suggest

00:28:19.080 that the election isn't going to be anywhere near close? What do the polls tell you? Oh, it's about a tie.

00:28:26.040 How in the world are we supposed to believe any of this? That the detailed polling shows Trump just

00:28:34.920 annihilating Biden on all the important stuff. All of it. There's nothing that Biden's leading on.

00:28:42.600 And yet the polls are going to be close. Biden's actually leading in some polls.

00:28:46.760 How in the world can we explain this polling? It looks like the polling is completely fake,

00:28:58.280 at least some of it. I mean, I assume that the top number is the fake. If the bottom number shows that

00:29:05.320 Trump is leading on everything that matters, how in the world could he be leading in the polling?

00:29:11.720 Because you would think that if the same people who were just pro-Biden, they knew they were doing a

00:29:16.840 poll that involved Trump and Biden, wouldn't they also say that Biden was winning on the individual

00:29:22.520 categories? Wouldn't they? If you're in the bag for Biden and you just want to say Trump bad,

00:29:29.800 Biden good, you would say that Biden was healthier. You'd say he's better for the economy,

00:29:36.280 but they're not even willing to do that. And he's still tied. Okay. There's something deeply wrong

00:29:43.160 with what we're saying. I don't know what it is. I really don't.

00:29:48.840 Well, let's check in on the, uh, all the conspiracy theories. I swear to God, you know, sometimes it's

00:29:55.480 hard to have a conservative sort of Republican audience, because you know, you guys, and I'm talking to all

00:30:02.120 of you, you know, you guys have some wild conspiracy theories. Am I right? Like one of them is that

00:30:08.840 the government, especially the Democrats are packed with a bunch of sex offenders that haven't been

00:30:14.600 caught yet. It's like some big, you know, pedophile conspiracy theory. Like you guys will believe

00:30:23.960 anything. Yeah. You're believing that the top people in the Democrat party are all a bunch of pedos.

00:30:30.840 Crazy. Well, next story is that President Obama's former senior policy advisor Rahimin Shai has been

00:30:39.400 charged with child. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, maybe you're right sometimes. Okay. I'm going to give

00:30:45.560 you this one. All right. I'll give you this. Turns out it's a whole party full of exactly what you thought.

00:30:54.920 So yeah, Colin Rugg was reporting this on X. Um, so the senior policy advisor

00:31:02.760 is being charged with sex offenses. Let's just say he had some bad stuff on his computer, some bad stuff.

00:31:11.960 And he worked on the U S strategy to combat terrorism and terrorists. And so while he was

00:31:18.440 helping us fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the children were fighting him off or something like

00:31:24.120 that, I guess there were some kind of allegations. They're allegations people. He's innocent until

00:31:28.280 proven guilty. So take your conspiracy theories, even though they look suspiciously supportable.

00:31:39.800 Anyway, he wasn't in charge of ordering the pizza and hot dogs for Obama, but you know, you know where

00:31:48.200 that story's going. Well, thankfully, um, the, the Democrats are trying to get those corrupt

00:31:57.400 Republicans out of office by having a sweep and winning everything in 2024. And, uh, oh,

00:32:03.720 here's a story about Ted Lou. He's accused of using donors money to give $50,000 donation to Stanford

00:32:12.040 who then soon after admitted his child to Stanford. So that's probably a coincidence.

00:32:21.080 Am I right? And, uh, I'll tell you when I give money to a politician, what I'm really hoping the

00:32:30.200 politician spends it on is, uh, bribing a college to get his kid into it. Now there's no evidence

00:32:38.600 that's what happened. That's simply an allegation. And we have a correlation, but not a causation.

00:32:44.760 It could be that he loves Stanford so much that he wanted to give them money and he had this donor

00:32:52.360 money. So he gave him that. It had nothing to do with the admission of his child. Innocent until

00:33:00.120 proven guilty. Right? Sometimes it's hard to say this until proven guilty, but let's try to keep that

00:33:10.440 standard. Well, if you're watching the, uh, protester situation at Columbia university,

00:33:17.800 I'm not sure I'd call it protesting so much as antisemitism. And, uh, it's got, it's become, uh,

00:33:24.360 super dangerous and scary if you're a Jewish student, or even if you're Jewish and anywhere near that

00:33:30.680 situation. But, uh, apparently they built a tent city in the middle of the campus. Um, the, an Orthodox

00:33:39.080 rabbi who I guess is associated with Columbia and Barnard, he sent out a WhatsApp message to 290

00:33:47.320 Jewish students. And he said, uh, you know, maybe they should go home until it's safe to go to college.

00:33:53.800 He actually said, you should consider going home and just dropping out of college until it's safe and

00:33:59.720 then come back. Now that's not a very practical suggestion for most people. You can't really easily

00:34:06.440 drop out of college if that's your whole plan. Right. Um, but that's how bad it is. Now you might

00:34:13.960 say to yourself, Scott, this is terrible because, um, it's so terrible because not only have the, uh,

00:34:24.360 the protesters create a highly antisemitic situation and it's scary and there actually been physical

00:34:30.280 attacks on Jewish students, et cetera. I think somebody at Yale got stabbed at a protest. Um,

00:34:36.520 so it's getting really dicey and dicey, but as bad as it is now, um, I don't think you should be

00:34:44.680 super worried yet. I wouldn't worry until the Columbia tent people start digging tunnels.

00:34:53.240 If you hear that the Columbia protesters have started to build tunnels,

00:34:56.680 then that's the next level of worrying. I would take your concern up to another level

00:35:05.080 right now. I would put it at the level of seriously, seriously, completely concerning and must be fixed

00:35:10.600 immediately. But I think if they start building tunnels under the tents, I'd take that up another

00:35:17.480 level, at least one more DEFCON. So that's my standard. Once they got tunnels,

00:35:24.680 then you got to worry. All right. Anyway, um, but I think that if they do build tunnels,

00:35:33.800 I think there's a theoretical number of, uh, migrants who could be urinating outdoors that

00:35:39.560 would flood the tunnels. Uh, anyway, let's not solve it yet. Let's wait till it's a problem.

00:35:46.760 Uh, let's see. Uh, the Democrats have a new campaign ad showing, uh, a young woman who's trying to

00:35:52.520 go to another state to get an abortion because Alabama law would prohibit it. And, uh, the,

00:36:00.040 the theatrical, uh, approach that the advertising campaign is taking is that you see the pregnant

00:36:05.880 woman being stopped by the Alabama police and say, you can't cross state lines to get an abortion.

00:36:12.760 And she's like frisked and arrested. Now, apparently that's not yet a law, but there are allegedly,

00:36:21.080 can you give me a fact check on this? Um, allegedly

00:36:27.400 that Alabama is looking at, uh, making it illegal to go to another state to get an abortion where it is

00:36:33.480 legal. Is that actually something that Republicans are dumb enough to do?

00:36:38.120 Is that actually being discussed? Cause I have trouble believing that

00:36:44.920 that sounds like just something I made up right now. I wouldn't be surprised if

00:36:48.520 there are some people who have suggested it because there's always some people who suggest everything,

00:36:54.280 but I can't imagine there's any serious effort in Alabama to stop somebody from driving across the

00:36:59.880 state line. Is there? Can anybody give me a fact check on that? Is there?

00:37:07.560 Sure. Cause I, I'd ask some serious questions if that's, if that's the case, you know,

00:37:13.480 regardless of what you think about abortion, your state can't stop you from driving to another state

00:37:18.600 and doing what's legal in that state. There's no way that that's going to be a law. Is it? I don't know.

00:37:28.040 We've seen some crazy things, but I can't imagine that would become a law.

00:37:31.000 Meanwhile, at Steve Bannon's war room, there's some new information from Kurt Olson. He's an attorney,

00:37:41.560 and I guess he's got some new information. You've probably heard this before, but what's new is

00:37:47.000 that they're using the updated information about the Dominion machines, their claims about them,

00:37:52.200 allegations, I'll call them, that they found some, let's say data security issues. I'll tell you what

00:38:00.760 they are in a moment and that they're updating some Supreme court filings. So there's some kind

00:38:07.240 of Supreme court case that is being pushed forward. Doesn't mean the Supreme court will take it.

00:38:15.240 It's just, you know, an application of some sort for them to take it. But of course they don't take

00:38:22.200 most things. So we'll see, but here are the claims. So Kurt Olson says his security experts have found

00:38:29.960 the following that in the 2020 and 22, 2022 elections, um, that Dominion used altered software

00:38:39.160 and lied about it. That's the allegation, meaning that, um, they said they were using one version of

00:38:46.120 software, but the actual election was run on a different version. Now, is that a problem?

00:38:53.000 That's like a really big problem. That's as big as you can get. If the system was checked out for

00:39:00.680 security with one version of software and then ran a different version, that's, that's the same as not

00:39:07.480 checking it for security. I mean, or at least it leaves a big hole, but that's not the only thing.

00:39:14.680 Also in those last two elections, um, they said they pre performed pre-election tests on the machines,

00:39:22.840 which would sound like they tested all the machines before the election. That's how I

00:39:27.880 interpret that. But the claim is that they didn't, they didn't test the machines. They only tested some

00:39:33.640 spares. In other words, they only tested machines that were not used in the election

00:39:40.120 and said they tested the machines used in the election by testing machines that were not used

00:39:44.760 in the election. Is that a problem? Yeah, could be kind of sketchy. But then the third one is the

00:39:54.600 funniest one that the claim is that the master encryption key was left open in plain text that

00:40:01.320 anyone who knew where to look could find out how to have God control over the entire election

00:40:07.000 simply by knowing where to look. They wouldn't have to hack anything. They just have to know where to look.

00:40:13.080 And it was so, so unsecure. The claim is that you could have changed anything happening in the system

00:40:22.200 without detection. Now, do you believe that? Now, I'm going to say that there's some pushback on the claim

00:40:30.280 that you could do massive election machine cheating and not get caught. Because there are some controls,

00:40:39.160 right? There are some audits, there are some checks. So it does seem to me that some types of

00:40:44.360 misbehavior would get caught. But does that mean that every kind of cheating can get caught?

00:40:50.840 Because if you could check the counting machines as well as the voting machines, and I think it was

00:40:55.720 all part of one network. So you had control of more than one kind of machine, the vote and also the

00:41:01.400 count of the vote. Do you think that the allegation will stand that you could change something in the

00:41:09.320 voting machines that wouldn't be detected? So the wouldn't be detected part is the part I think

00:41:15.400 would be the hardest to prove. Because I would imagine that Dominion will have some kind of

00:41:20.200 argument that sounds like, well, yeah, you could make those changes. But we would obviously catch them.

00:41:27.800 So we'll see if that's a good argument. But I think that would be the argument. But what else would it be?

00:41:33.960 Right? If it were you, you would argue, yeah, we would catch that. And here's how we would catch it.

00:41:38.200 So I don't know if this is enough to get it into the Supreme Court. However, anybody who's making a

00:41:45.640 claim that the election systems are secure is going to have to deal with the fact that they found three

00:41:52.280 potential problems that don't mean they were exploited. So remember, separate the two topics.

00:42:00.200 One topic is, you know, did anybody do anything bad on the election? And the other topic is, could they?

00:42:08.120 Was it possible that maybe they just didn't do it? And I think the question, was it possible, is looking

00:42:14.520 more credible than it has before. But remember, all these election claims, they almost all turn out

00:42:25.240 not to be true. So if we were to look at it from the 30,000 foot level, and I said, hey, there's another

00:42:31.240 claim about the election, you should bet against it. Do you agree? If I said there's another claim,

00:42:38.920 but I didn't give you any details about the elections, what would you bet? Well, the smart bet,

00:42:45.960 you know, is 20 to one in favor of it not being, you know, not being conclusive.

00:42:52.600 So we'll see. These are pretty big, pretty big claims. But then Steve Bannon asked the question,

00:42:59.080 would Murdoch have won that gigantic Fox News case, in which Tucker was saying things about the

00:43:05.880 security of the election systems? Would Murdoch have won that case, if he had had these three

00:43:11.560 pieces of information? And he could have said in that trial, well, we don't know what happened,

00:43:16.600 but here's your security key right here. Imagine if during the trial, where Fox News, you know,

00:43:24.360 was under fire for saying that the election machines were not secure. Imagine if the defense

00:43:30.360 had pulled out a document, had pulled out a document, and they said, you know your encryption

00:43:35.720 security key? Here it is. And then just walk in front of the jury, you know, not that they could

00:43:42.600 care or read the digits, but just say, look, here's the encryption key. Do you know who had access to

00:43:49.480 this? Everybody who knew where to look. Wouldn't that be the end of the case?

00:43:54.680 How could you sit in the jury and let's say that that evidence held up against cross-examination

00:44:02.920 and everything? If that held up, then it really was there. And if you knew where to look, you could

00:44:08.120 find it. Now, here's the part I don't know. How many people had access to that? Because you'd still

00:44:14.120 have to have access to the system before you could find something on the system. So at the very least,

00:44:20.600 it would mean that any of the techs using the system could have thwarted it. So an inside job

00:44:26.760 would still be possible, but probably has to be an inside job, unless the hackers can get in.

00:44:32.920 And maybe they can. So we'll keep an eye on that. If you had applied the Dilber filter to the election,

00:44:41.400 what would it have predicted? Now, the Dilber filter says that all big organizations

00:44:47.320 operate super inefficiently and selfishly and stupidly and everything's a lie.

00:44:54.280 That's the Dilber filter. We were told that this massive enterprise of, you know, machines and

00:45:01.880 technology and how it's all tied together in this complex system was flawless.

00:45:07.240 If you've ever had any experience at a big company or any big organization, there's no big organization

00:45:17.400 that could pull this off flawlessly. The number of, you know, alleged problems with the system

00:45:24.680 are exactly what I would have predicted. And I think I did, maybe not in the right words, but if you had

00:45:32.440 any experience in a Dilbert-like world, and this is a whole bunch of Dilbert worlds, you know,

00:45:37.480 every election precinct is a little Dilbert world, people don't have the ability to do this flawlessly.

00:45:45.480 That's not something humans can do. Humans cannot pull off this level of complexity

00:45:51.720 and organization without a lot of problems. So as soon as you were told that we don't have any problems,

00:45:59.480 problems, every, every antenna should have gone up. Wait a minute. You're in exactly a situation

00:46:06.520 where a hundred percent of the time there are problems and big ones, but this is the only time

00:46:12.680 that's not, not the case. Would you have believed it? No, the Dilbert filter is very predictive.

00:46:19.960 If it's a big organization, people are cheating and lying and bullshitting every time, not sometimes,

00:46:26.600 not most of the time, every time. It's just as something to do with scale. If you get enough

00:46:35.000 people in one place doing, you know, some kind of common thing, a lot of them are going to be bad

00:46:39.720 people. You can't avoid it. All right, let's take that and apply that to, let's say, climate change.

00:46:48.840 Dave, have you noticed that checking the temperature at the thermometers around the country

00:46:55.640 remind you of checking of owning machines? Let's say, in both cases, it's a very large enterprise

00:47:04.360 with very complicated, lots of moving parts, lots of human beings involved, a lack of transparency,

00:47:13.480 very high stakes, people have a lot of money involved,

00:47:18.840 how often is that going to be corrupt? If you use the Dilbert filter, the Dilbert filter would say

00:47:25.000 that climate change would be corrupt 100% of the time, and that the reading of the thermometers

00:47:31.240 isn't much different from the making sure your election, your counting machines and your voting

00:47:36.840 machines are all accurate and there's no security problems, and that all the people working on them

00:47:41.640 did the right thing to keep them secure. Because remember, the security of Dominion's machines,

00:47:49.160 I think this is fair to say, is not about their design. Because nobody said yet, I haven't seen

00:47:55.720 anybody say this, that they're designed poorly. It appears that the humans are the problem.

00:48:03.400 If somebody left an unencrypted, you know, basically a password to the whole machine to give you God

00:48:11.880 capability, that feels more like a human problem. Like somebody should have known not to do that.

00:48:19.880 It doesn't exactly sound like a technology problem. I mean, it looks like it was done intentionally.

00:48:25.720 But you know, in the real world, incompetence explains almost everything. So we can't tell in this case.

00:48:32.280 So I would say, I would take the Dilbert filter to the climate thermometer measuring world, and I'd say,

00:48:40.120 there's not really any chance that humans can do that as accurately as the experts tell us.

00:48:46.600 So I have the same opinion on the voting machines as I do on climate change,

00:48:51.080 that when you've got that level of complexity and monies involved and all that, that's not something

00:48:56.520 people can do to a level of perfection that you would want. Now let's talk about evolution.

00:49:05.000 I love that evolution is in the headlines again. It's just the ultimate provocative thing.

00:49:11.560 So Tucker Carlson was on Joe Rogan the other day, and Tucker said that he doesn't believe in

00:49:18.040 evolution. He does believe, you know, in species changing over time in the sense that, you know,

00:49:24.680 you could breed a dog to be taller or bigger. And, you know, maybe finches can have bigger or smaller

00:49:31.320 beaks or change their colors. But according to Tucker, and this is not my view, this is Tucker,

00:49:37.960 human evolution has never been demonstrated by the fossil record. Would you agree with that statement?

00:49:43.960 Science does not agree with that statement. But do you agree with it? That the fossil record does not

00:49:50.600 prove human evolution. And that, in fact, the record doesn't show anything else evolving either.

00:50:01.240 It can show you a fossil of one thing, and it can show you a fossil of another thing.

00:50:07.640 But you can't really tell that the one thing turned into the other thing, because the fossil record is not

00:50:15.080 that accurate. Now, to argue, I'm going to argue both sides, you know, so I want to steel man this as

00:50:22.840 much as possible so it doesn't just sound absurd. The theory, the so-called theory of evolution

00:50:30.680 has a ton of evidence in favor of it. A ton of evidence. I mean, almost as much as climate change.

00:50:45.080 Almost as much evidence as the fact that our elections are all secure and no problem at all. Those are

00:50:54.120 three things that have a ton of evidence. The first two are ridiculously false.

00:51:02.920 And when I say false, I'm not making an allegation of my own about the voting machines,

00:51:07.400 so I can stay out of legal trouble. I'm saying I don't see any situation in which this level of

00:51:13.160 complexity is going to lead to humans getting it flawlessly right.

00:51:17.240 Evolution is pretty complicated, too. A lot of moving parts and a lot of money involved.

00:51:27.480 But what are the odds that we got this one right?

00:51:32.520 Here's a little mind bender for you. When you were in school, did you learn that

00:51:37.800 evolution was the survival of the fittest? How many of you learned that that's what evolution was,

00:51:43.240 the survival of the fittest? Do you know they changed that, right? Because they found out that

00:51:49.880 wasn't the case. It's the single most important element of evolution, as we understood it,

00:51:58.360 that you had to have some adaptive benefit in order for that to continue. If it wasn't a benefit,

00:52:05.480 then it wouldn't continue. But the modern version of evolution is that things just happen.

00:52:12.440 It's not always a benefit. So, for example, if you were a bird evolving on an island with no predators,

00:52:21.640 well, then you could evolve for a thousand years having messed up birds that can't fly very well.

00:52:28.280 No predators. If the predators were there and they couldn't fly, they would all get eaten.

00:52:35.400 But if there's no predators, they can just willy-nilly evolve randomly into whatever the hell they want.

00:52:41.960 So, the modern version of evolution pretty much completely rejects the original version of

00:52:47.960 evolution that I was told was rock solid. I was told evolution was just a fact in school.

00:52:57.400 But now I'm told that the most basic element of how I worked. Now it's nothing like that. It's really just

00:53:04.360 it's just the evolution of what happened, not the fittest.

00:53:06.920 Now, but what about that fossil record?

00:53:13.720 Would you say the entire evolution depends on just the fossil record?

00:53:22.520 No, it does not because there's other evidence. For example,

00:53:26.120 viruses, although they're not alive, so that shouldn't count. I think bacteria, some other

00:53:32.920 stuff. So, in the lab, you can force things to evolve. But I'm not sure you can turn a

00:53:40.520 bacteria into a germ. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think a bacteria is different than

00:53:46.920 a germ. I'm pretty sure. So, is there anything happening in the lab? I just don't know, actually.

00:53:56.680 Is there anything happening in the lab that is definitely evolution?

00:54:00.920 Or is the lab just more proof that you can, you know, breed a big dog into a little dog if you try?

00:54:08.440 I don't know. But here's where it gets interesting. Elon Musk replied to this conversation with the

00:54:17.640 Psy. The Psy seemed to indicate that watching Tucker doubt evolution was sort of anti-science.

00:54:25.880 But how do you believe in evolution if you also believe in the simulation?

00:54:34.120 Now, you could say that the simulation just includes evolution.

00:54:39.400 And so, it all happened. It's all simulated, but it all happened within the simulation just like everything else.

00:54:45.640 Maybe. But if we're a simulation, it suggests there's probably a resource limit,

00:54:51.720 because everything seems to have a resource limit. Now, not necessarily. It could be some future,

00:54:58.200 you know, unlimited technology species, but far more likely it would be a species like us

00:55:05.320 in some ways that is limited in resources. If it's limited in resources, it's not going to build the

00:55:10.360 whole universe in the simulation. That would be crazy. It's going to build the stuff you can see,

00:55:16.840 and then as you need to see other stuff, let's say we can go to see the backside of the moon

00:55:24.200 for the first time. That's when it becomes real. It fills it in when you can see it.

00:55:29.160 Now, we do see in science that our observation does seem to change reality. So that's not crazy.

00:55:36.280 So I would say that if you believe the simulation is a billion to one more likely than not being a

00:55:43.400 simulation, it's a little sketchy to say that evolution is true. Because in my view, simulation

00:55:50.440 doesn't require, but very likely, the past is created by the present. So if you saw any evidence

00:56:00.200 of that, like the double slit experiment, in my view, that's my own interpretation, that is the

00:56:05.720 present created in the past. Because when you look at, it's only when you look at it that it's different

00:56:12.520 in the past. Does that make sense? The first time you look at the results for the double slit

00:56:17.800 experiment without getting into details about it, when you look at it, that's the first time you know

00:56:23.320 that there was an interference. And again, without the details, you know there was an interference

00:56:27.400 pattern. But the interference pattern had to have existed before you looked at it, because otherwise

00:56:33.880 it wouldn't be there. So by looking at it, you've actually created the past for the first time.

00:56:40.360 Now, if you measured it without looking at it, it also solidifies it into that interference pattern.

00:56:48.600 But the measurement is just another way of, you know, solidifying reality. It doesn't need to be

00:56:54.520 a human, it could be a measurement. But in both cases, the present created the past.

00:57:01.240 Now, I know some of you are going to say, Scott, you are misinterpreting that experiment.

00:57:06.600 To which I say, hey, whatever your name is, no, you're misinterpreting it. And so are all the

00:57:14.200 scientists. Do you know why they're misinterpreting it? Because they can't handle the fact that the

00:57:19.160 arrow of time is not what they think it is. So they start with the assumption that you can't be changed

00:57:25.080 in the past. Whereas I start with the assumption that change in the past is probably the way it works.

00:57:33.160 It's the most likely way it works. So if you enter the double slit experiment, assuming the most likely

00:57:38.840 way the world works is that your observations changed the past. Well, there it is. It's right in

00:57:44.280 front of you. If you think that's not possible, then you would interpret it a different way, I suppose.

00:57:50.520 Anyway, I saw Cerno saying, Mike Cernovich, the theory he posted today, the theory of evolution,

00:58:00.040 people can't even figure out, he goes, the theory of evolution, people can't even figure out where

00:58:06.120 COVID originated, LMAO.

00:58:08.840 So is that fair? Now, that's the Dilber principle. He's basically stating it in a more commonsensical

00:58:22.760 headline way. But the reason we can't figure out where COVID originated from might be capability,

00:58:30.840 but it might be more to do with the people that everybody lies. So the world is full of liars

00:58:37.000 lying for lots of different reasons. So if you look at anything that's happening during our time,

00:58:44.040 you can see it's mostly a bunch of lying. But then you look at evolution and you're like,

00:58:49.080 oh, I'm glad we totally nailed that. Yeah. Yeah. The elections we have doubts about, we've got

00:58:55.560 doubts about those thermometers, but oh, the evolution's good. We nailed the evolution.

00:59:05.720 I saw Colin Wright on X say, here's his view. He says, the right can't convincingly accuse the

00:59:13.800 woke left of, quote, denying biology, you know, the whole trans thing, regarding biological sex,

00:59:21.160 if they themselves reject evolution. Hmm. Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense that you

00:59:28.680 can't doubt one part of science if you're doubting a different part of science? How does that make

00:59:35.640 sense? Isn't doubting science built into science? And can't I say most of it looks good, but I doubt this

00:59:43.320 part? I thought that's the whole point. I thought that's exactly what I can do.

00:59:50.920 I can say you got gravity right, but I'm not so sure about climate change. There's no such thing as

00:59:58.680 trusting science. If you're trusting science, you're doing it wrong. Science says, don't trust me.

01:00:06.280 Right? Science says, hey, people, don't trust me. That's his main message. That's the number

01:00:14.680 one thing it says. Don't trust me. You better test this a lot.

01:00:21.320 All right. So here's why, yeah.

01:00:26.040 And then Tucker says that God built it. And I say that any filter that works,

01:00:40.120 keep doing it. All right. If having a God filter on things lets you organize your life in a productive

01:00:46.200 way and raise your kids to be good citizens and all that, it does appear to do that. I'd say, sure,

01:00:52.680 do some of that. But if it doesn't stop you from doing science, that's the important part.

01:00:58.760 I mean, you can't ignore all of science because you disagree with one part of it.

01:01:05.960 All right. Here's some more science. Mario is reporting that

01:01:11.320 there's a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

01:01:15.000 So it's in their annals. So in their annals, they studied fasting and they say it doesn't work for

01:01:24.680 losing weight. This is in our test technical. It doesn't work for losing weight. Do you believe

01:01:30.760 that? Do you believe that fasting doesn't work for losing weight?

01:01:35.960 That as long as you eat the same amount of food over time, you don't lose weight. How is that? Why

01:01:48.600 do you even have to study that? Who didn't understand that if you ate the same amount of food in the same

01:01:54.520 time frame, you would weigh the same no matter when you ate it? Did we really need to study that?

01:01:59.640 Now, when you say fasting works, let's be specific. Fasting has benefits that are claimed

01:02:14.200 that are good for your body and your mental health, right? But not necessarily weight loss.

01:02:20.760 If you're fasting for weight loss, then all you're doing is eating less if you're doing it right.

01:02:25.800 So if what you did is fast for a day and then the next day you ate the normal amount for that day,

01:02:34.200 of course you'd lose weight because you would have an entire day with no calories. So apparently what

01:02:40.840 they tested was if you fast for a day and then eat twice as much the next day, you won't lose weight.

01:02:48.360 Did they really need to study that? Was that a surprise to somebody?

01:02:53.720 I don't know. Looks like bad science to me. Well, End Wokeness is reporting that the LA mayor,

01:03:01.320 Karen Bass, her house was burglarized. Now I know what you're going to say. That's an old story,

01:03:08.680 Scott. We already know that Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, who was sort of a soft on crime

01:03:14.920 person. We already know that her house was burglarized. And so why are you bringing it up again?

01:03:19.800 Because it was burglarized a second time. Yep. The soft on crime mayor just got burglarized a second

01:03:31.880 time. So here's my unpopular take on that. If DEI never existed, I would look at her and say,

01:03:44.280 hmm, looks like she had some bad policies or maybe she'll correct it. In the context of DEI,

01:03:51.880 when I see a black mayor who's clearly not getting the job done, I say to myself, huh,

01:03:58.440 looks like a DEI problem. Like the base problem is DEI. And the reason I say that is I think a better

01:04:06.040 leader could fix it. You know, being tougher on crime, for example. So is it my fault that I live

01:04:15.560 in a world where I'm continuously reminded of DEI and then I see somebody who is black and is in charge

01:04:23.880 and is failing? What am I supposed to think? If the society primes me to say DEI, DEI

01:04:35.000 is why we're looking for people and hiring people and voting for people,

01:04:39.720 of course I'm going to think that the problem is DEI. Now that's different from saying there's a problem

01:04:44.600 with the person. So you have to separate that. One is a system and the other is an individual.

01:04:53.000 So I'm not making a claim about the individual. And indeed, if it turns out she's really good at

01:04:58.200 her job, it's hard to tell from the outside. But if it turns out she's really good at her job

01:05:02.920 and maybe even made one slip that maybe she'll fix, a pretty big one. But if she fixed it,

01:05:09.160 I would give her credit. So I don't know that there's something wrong with the individual.

01:05:18.440 But I do know that in the context of DEI, they've created a situation where it's my first

01:05:25.720 assumption. It's my working assumption. Now, do you think that's good for black people?

01:05:32.440 That when I see a black leader who's not getting it done, that I think it's because of DEI.

01:05:39.400 Not because necessarily there's something wrong with the person. That's a whole different

01:05:43.320 conversation. The person might actually be qualified. And it would be terribly,

01:05:48.680 terribly unfair to a qualified black leader to be painted with the same brush

01:05:56.200 just because it's in the context of DEI. I don't see how black people come out ahead with DEI.

01:06:02.520 To me, it looks like a complete losing proposition. And I think what's wrong about it is what Democrats

01:06:08.840 get wrong every time. They don't take into account the room. You got to read the room.

01:06:17.400 Right? Read the room. That's what Trump did correctly on abortion, I think.

01:06:23.160 You know, even if you don't like where he landed, he read the room right.

01:06:27.640 He read the room right. Just exactly right. Right? There's no right answer, but he found

01:06:32.920 the safest place to be on it for a president. That's reading the room right. And DEI is reading

01:06:39.800 the room so wrong. It's almost like ignoring that it matters what other people think of DEI.

01:06:47.560 No, it's actually the most important thing. The most important thing is how white people think about

01:06:53.560 it. But we're going to be really quiet in the short run. In the long run, we're going to form

01:06:59.240 opinions that it's promoting unqualified people. There's nothing you could do about that. We're not

01:07:05.960 broken. There's nothing to fix. You designed a system that guarantees that

01:07:12.280 people are going to assume DEI hires are less qualified. And the math suggests that it will

01:07:20.440 often be true, but not always, of course. So how is that a good situation for being black in America?

01:07:27.800 To me, this would be just the worst freaking thing. You know, if you're capable, you're going to be

01:07:32.840 operating under this umbrella of assumption of incapability. And I can't imagine anything that

01:07:38.680 would be more just destructive to your entire ability to enjoy your life. Anyway, get out of LA.

01:07:48.040 LA has fallen. There's a campaign video, I guess you'd call it that, that is the strongest one I think

01:07:57.800 maybe I've ever seen. Now think about what big a statement that is. It's a campaign ad, just a two

01:08:04.680 minute ad, might be the strongest one I've ever seen for any side at any time, anywhere. It was made by

01:08:14.680 Western Lensman and Blake Hebbion. So I've posted it. If you want to go see it, I'm not going to

01:08:22.200 give it to you, but I'll just tell you how it felt. It promises at the beginning to tell you 25 ways

01:08:29.480 that Biden is destroying America or the Democrats, I guess. And it's going to do it in two minutes.

01:08:38.440 Now, when I heard that, I'm like, really? 25 ways. You're going to give me 25 ways in two minutes.

01:08:47.080 And I'm supposed to think that these are all credible. So here's what I assumed.

01:08:51.400 The first five, probably you're going to be pretty good. Like things I might agree with like,

01:08:58.120 oh, open border. Yeah, that is destroying the country. And then I thought, by the time you get

01:09:03.880 to 25, you're going to be into the weak stuff, right? It just makes sense, right? You're going to

01:09:09.960 put the strong stuff up front. And then I'm going to say, wow, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then once you

01:09:15.240 got me nodding, nodding along, by the time you get to eight or nine on the list of 25,

01:09:21.000 you've just hypnotized me like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, that's right. Oh yeah. And then you get to the

01:09:25.400 25 and they might be weak, but, but, but you're all, you're all on board at that point.

01:09:31.560 Didn't go like that. All 25 are strong. And when you see them together, it's like your hair catches on

01:09:41.480 fire because when you see them together, it does look like the Democrats are legitimately

01:09:48.440 trying to destroy the country. And you don't see it. If you see any one of the 25 things individually,

01:09:55.080 because they all have a reason, well, we're working on this and there's a reason for that. And well,

01:09:59.960 you didn't look at the trade off and well, it's not a perfect world. And you know, everything's got

01:10:03.880 its own little excuse, but boy, when you see all 25 of them together, it looks like Democrats are

01:10:10.280 literally intentionally trying to destroy the country. And I think there's something to that.

01:10:17.880 Because when you hate something, you will even subconsciously do everything you can to destroy it.

01:10:24.760 Right. It doesn't even mean it's a plan. I wouldn't claim it's a plan. I don't think,

01:10:29.960 I don't think there's a meeting where somebody said, Hey, let's destroy the country in a variety of

01:10:35.000 ways. I think what it is, is a lot of young people, especially, um, maybe seeing that the,

01:10:41.560 the elites stole everything that's worth stealing and left them nothing but crumbs.

01:10:47.160 Now, if I were 20 years old and I thought the elites in both parties had stolen everything good

01:10:54.120 and polluted the world and left it a ashen and crumbly mess with nothing but debt and war,

01:11:00.440 I would want to destroy that system. And it wouldn't matter what will happen. I'd be like,

01:11:06.920 okay. Yeah. Well, anything, you want to turn the boys and the girls? Yeah, go ahead. I'm down to that.

01:11:14.520 Yeah. What could go wrong? So I do want to, um, yeah, you should take your time to look at it. It's

01:11:20.840 on my X feed. I posted it today. So strong. So congratulations to Blake Habian and whatever Western

01:11:29.800 Lensman did. I'm not sure who did what I think Blake might've produced it. Uh, actually I'm not sure,

01:11:35.480 but the, but they worked together on it in some way. Um, but it's amazing. It's probably the most

01:11:42.600 persuasive thing I've seen in a campaign ad. New York times has a guest opinion today. And the

01:11:50.120 title of the guest opinion is government surveillance keeps us safe.

01:11:54.040 is that scary to see that the paper of record is running a, uh, an opinion piece that says

01:12:11.560 government surveillance of all the citizens can keep you safe. Yeah. Everybody always says, oh,

01:12:17.080 this is so 1984. This is the most 1984 thing I've ever seen. It'd be hard to top this one.

01:12:25.160 That's a topper. But the thing is, I actually agree with it. It does keep you safe. It just takes

01:12:32.040 your freedom away. That's always the trade off. You know, the government can do lots of things to keep

01:12:38.040 you safe, lock you into your house, but in the long run, maybe you're not too happy about it.

01:12:43.480 Um, I think this government surveillance probably goes a long way to explaining why we haven't had

01:12:51.160 worst terror attacks since nine 11. I feel like the fact that we have no privacy

01:12:58.840 is the only reason there haven't been major terror attacks. I think that a lot of stuff must be

01:13:03.240 getting thwarted, uh, in its infancy because they have complete ability to monitor just literally

01:13:09.960 everything. So that's the most positive thing you can put on it. But no, I'm not in favor of the

01:13:15.400 government surveilling every single thing we do, but I think it's a fact and it's not going to change.

01:13:21.880 Here about this, uh, there's a business called sheets. I don't know what they do. S H E E T Z.

01:13:28.760 And they're being sued by the government, by the administration for discriminating,

01:13:34.440 uh, for discriminating against minorities. And specifically their form of discrimination is

01:13:41.080 they require applicants to pass a criminal record, uh, background check. So sheets doesn't want to

01:13:48.200 hire people who have criminal records, but since there are more people with criminal records in the

01:13:53.960 underserved communities, uh, that would be, um, now illegal according to the Biden administration.

01:14:00.360 So the Biden administration wants to force this company to hire, um, convicted felons.

01:14:09.800 So, uh, but you know, it's ridiculous.

01:14:15.400 You know, it's ridiculous. I mean, really, do you really think there are 25 different ways

01:14:22.760 that the Biden administration is trying to literally destroy the country?

01:14:26.280 Maybe 26, maybe 26, maybe 26, because it's clearly as bad for the country.

01:14:37.400 It couldn't be any worse for the country. And here it is. And they're going to spend a lot of resources

01:14:43.560 on this, uh, of all the things that the, that the Biden administration could do to root out

01:14:50.200 unfairness and discrimination. They had to find this one. Now, doesn't that mean that everything else

01:15:00.440 that's more important than this has been solved? Do they have so much resource,

01:15:07.720 so many resources that they could solve all the big discrimination problems? They're, they're all well

01:15:13.160 handled, but now they're working down the list and priorities. And we're all the way down to the

01:15:18.440 the company that doesn't want to hire criminals. They should hire more criminals or they'll go to jail

01:15:25.000 or something. Fine, probably. So I, now, if you add this to the fact that, uh, the white supremacists

01:15:33.480 that they were looking for in the military didn't exist, I think things are really going well.

01:15:40.040 Well, if you've got DEI hires in all the major cities and, uh, the worst remaining discrimination

01:15:48.520 you could find is that they're high, they don't want to hire criminals. Amazing.

01:15:55.240 Well, let's talk about Ukraine. I saw a post by, uh, Joey, um, Manorino. And he says this in his post,

01:16:02.920 he said he had dinner with a friend from Ukraine and he said, and he learned something the media is not

01:16:07.880 reporting. If you're a male citizen of Ukraine who lives outside the country and your passport expires,

01:16:14.760 you no longer can renew it at an embassy. So if you're in a Ukrainian man at another country,

01:16:22.520 mostly maybe to get away from Ukraine, uh, if your passport expires, they won't renew it.

01:16:29.960 You have to come back to Ukraine and die in the meat grinder.

01:16:32.600 Wow. Um, so if you don't have a passport, you can't stay in the country you're in, but you also

01:16:42.440 can go back to the country. Some country should say you could come here because I'm pretty sure that

01:16:51.000 the Ukrainians, the Ukrainian men who are living, you know, escaped Ukraine to get away from the draft.

01:16:57.080 They're probably educated and employable. They'd probably be a pretty good group, you know, because

01:17:03.320 they're, they're not filtered for being criminals or anything. They're filtered for being smart enough

01:17:07.800 not to be part of a war. And they had enough resources that they could get out of the country.

01:17:12.920 That probably suggests it would be a great group of people to have in your country.

01:17:17.800 So, you know, maybe somebody will open their doors and, and make that more legal. Um, but

01:17:26.680 some other things we're learning, um, this from, uh, Brian Dean, right? I believe he is

01:17:31.560 used to be in the intelligence services, but now it's not. And, um, he's talking about, uh, how the war

01:17:40.440 is lost, basically the Ukraine war. He says there are two problems. One is massive corruption that we know

01:17:46.760 about. So it's going to be hard to keep shoveling the money when we know Zelensky is stealing it.

01:17:51.800 And his lieutenants are, and probably that's documented now. So we don't wonder if Zelensky

01:17:57.560 is stealing the money. Yeah, he is. And I guess everybody knows it. Um, but the other thing is

01:18:04.360 that there are no human beings left in Ukraine to fight that the, uh, the, the urban men disappeared

01:18:12.680 because they could, and the rural men are all dead. So they just ran into people. So according to, uh,

01:18:18.600 Brian Dean, right? Uh, the weapons aren't going to help as much as you want because they don't have

01:18:23.880 anybody to fire them. Now that wouldn't be so bad. I mean, it's terrible, but it wouldn't be so bad

01:18:34.680 if it looked like they could win, right? You'd say to yourself, well, that's the

01:18:38.760 most horrible thing. They lost all their men for a generation. But if they won, you know,

01:18:44.600 you can imagine that eventually they'd spin it into a great sacrifice and a victory,

01:18:50.040 but they're not winning. And indeed the whole goal that, uh, the Biden administration has said out loud

01:18:57.640 that it's just a cheap way to degrade the Russian military,

01:19:01.000 which I don't think most people care about, but maybe some do. Uh, but how's that working out?

01:19:07.880 The, uh, Politico reports that the Russian army is larger by 15% than it was when it invaded Ukraine

01:19:14.600 and their, uh, their industrial production is growing.

01:19:21.240 Their military is getting stronger and apparently there's no risk to the economy.

01:19:25.720 So basically we made Russia stronger.

01:19:31.640 Although I don't know that you can really tell that.

01:19:35.480 I'm not sure we know exactly what's happening in Russia. You know,

01:19:38.440 that's probably propaganda too. So I don't know how much Russia is winning, but it doesn't look like

01:19:44.520 they're losing. Um, you know, you can't believe anything from a war zone or from Russia or Ukraine.

01:19:50.760 But anyway, David Sachs is, is on this case, uh, making it clear. And I think he's correct. He's

01:19:56.600 making it clear that there is no win to be had and, and that we lost the only thing we said we were

01:20:03.800 trying to do, which is degrade Russia, et cetera. And I, I think I am a, uh, I have been won over to

01:20:11.880 the side that, uh, the whole point of making Ukraine NATO is so NATO, so Ukraine would have to buy weapons

01:20:18.040 from, uh, American manufacturers and that Americans would pay the, uh, with our taxes to give to Ukraine

01:20:25.880 so they could buy our weapons. So basically it's just our own military industrial complex looting our

01:20:30.440 pockets and, uh, their energy people trying to take Russia's energy and that sort of thing. So I,

01:20:39.080 I see America as more of a criminal enterprise than a military keeping the world safe for democracy.

01:20:47.560 That's my take. Ukraine looks entirely like a criminal enterprise backed by an army, uh,

01:20:55.000 because these stated claims are somewhat ludicrous. Whereas the more obvious explanation of what's

01:21:02.520 going on, you know, CIA wants to protect their labs and, you know, we want to have closer assets to

01:21:10.440 threaten Russia. And we, maybe we did want to degrade their military a little, or, you know, uh, get

01:21:16.120 Putin out of office, all that stuff. But it mostly, it looks like it's just a money grab corrupt,

01:21:22.760 uh, criminal enterprise and we're just knee deep in it. So I, I'm rejecting any notion that America's

01:21:33.480 the good guy in this situation. I think we're, I think we're the criminals in this situation.

01:21:37.960 That would be my take. Now, what is the solution for all of it? Well, Trump has to avoid the obvious

01:21:46.200 plot to assassinate him. I think we could say that out loud, right? I mean, if they're trying to remove

01:21:51.480 his secret service protection while painting him as a, a risk to democracy and a Hitler character,

01:21:58.440 that's a murder attempt. Now, the fact that they figured out a legal way to murder somebody

01:22:04.440 or attempted to murder them, uh, that doesn't change the fact that what it is, it might be legal,

01:22:11.880 but still murder.

01:22:12.840 So I would say our system is mostly blackmail, bribery, corruption, and murder,

01:22:20.440 and that the, uh, thin veneer of a republic and a democracy and all that stuff is, you know,

01:22:26.760 largely silly and absurd and clearly hasn't been with us for decades.

01:22:30.680 We're complicit unless we overthrow the corruption. Well, unless it's working.

01:22:40.680 See, that's the problem. Uh, it always comes down to what are the alternatives.

01:22:45.960 And I've said it before, but I'm going to double down on it. If it's true that we're not,

01:22:51.800 you know, a democratic republic, that doesn't mean we're worse off. It just means we're not what we

01:22:57.880 thought we were. It definitely means some people are being screwed. Definitely means that definitely

01:23:04.520 means the elites are getting richer, but here's the problem. That's every system. If you show me a

01:23:11.640 system where the elites don't not only stay elite, but they don't, you know, gain compared to the

01:23:17.640 population and rob them. I've never seen that system. What system is that?

01:23:22.360 So if every system robs the public for the benefit of the elite, and if it doesn't,

01:23:31.320 it doesn't have the resources to field an army and protect itself, it won't last.

01:23:37.560 So my take is the bigger and badder we are as a criminal enterprise, the longer we're going to last.

01:23:45.240 Why do you think Russia is still in business and going to survive this war?

01:23:48.600 Is it because they're a democratic republic? No, it's because they're a massive criminal enterprise

01:23:56.440 with the military, just like us. Look at China. Do you think the elites are doing better than the

01:24:05.240 people? I think so. I think so. Yeah, I think they're doing great. And does that mean that in a way,

01:24:13.080 conceptually, they're robbing the people to keep themselves in power? And yeah, of course, that's

01:24:18.440 what it means. That's exactly what it means. So every system that is successful, successful to the

01:24:26.120 point where, you know, we think they should be in NATO, let's say, let's say that's the minimum

01:24:31.480 level of a successful country, is that we want them in NATO. You don't get there without your elites

01:24:40.920 being totally in charge and being able to control the government and the military.

01:24:45.560 So I think that all of the countries that are successful are criminal enterprises.

01:24:49.640 Because in the long run, that's the model that works. And like the mafia, the mafia might not want

01:24:58.040 a lot of crime on its own street, because it doesn't want to interfere with the bigger crimes it's doing.

01:25:04.760 So it could be that our criminal government would do quite a good job of, you know, reducing crime

01:25:11.960 if the right members of it were in charge.

01:25:17.240 NATO is a cartel. Yeah, in a sense. Yeah, I mean, that doesn't that word fit perfectly?

01:25:25.640 Because cartels don't have to be illegal, do they? Well, I don't know, maybe they do. I'm not sure

01:25:30.440 if that's baked into the definition of a cartel. Doesn't a cartel just mean a bunch of people

01:25:35.400 with power who are operating together in some way. All right, we're going to do a closing sip,

01:25:44.840 because I think you need it.

01:25:49.080 Here's to you.

01:25:54.760 Now, do you think Trump could fix all of these problems I just mentioned?

01:25:58.840 How many of this criminal enterprise stuff could Trump fix?

01:26:07.560 Almost none.

01:26:10.520 If he can fix any of this stuff, he would have done some of it in the first term.

01:26:15.080 So it looks like whatever it is is stronger than all the presidents.

01:26:18.360 You know, I don't think there's any president that can fix it.

01:26:20.440 So here's what might happen. I think the people, you know, the elites, as we say,

01:26:29.800 the people in charge, I think if Trump gets elected by a big enough margin they can't cheat

01:26:35.320 him out of office, and they can't put him in jail because there are too many people who would go nuts,

01:26:41.400 I think they'll just try to wait him out. You know, they'll do everything they can to destroy

01:26:45.640 him while he's in office. But ultimately, they don't want to reveal too much about themselves

01:26:51.560 if they can just wait four years and go back to running everything.

01:26:56.120 So I feel like they'll just wait him out.

01:26:59.240 So there's one possibility that it won't be riots in the streets.

01:27:03.000 They might just say, let's just keep this on a slow boil, get through the four years,

01:27:11.240 get back in power, start another war, that sort of thing.

01:27:15.640 Probably the biggest problem would be if Trump doesn't fund another war.

01:27:22.760 I think if the first thing Trump did is fund a new war, he'd be fine.

01:27:28.040 He would be perfectly safe because everybody would be like, ah, yeah, keep that war guy in there.

01:27:38.520 War is when your government tells you who the enemy is.

01:27:41.720 Revolution is when the government's the enemy, yeah.

01:27:45.640 All right. And that's all I got for you today on the platforms of

01:27:53.240 Rumble and YouTube and X. I'm going to talk to the locals people, the subscribers privately.

01:27:58.520 Thanks for joining and I will see you soon.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 22, 2024

Episode 2452 CWSA 04⧸22⧸24

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript