Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2573 CWSA 08⧸21⧸24

00:00:00.000 shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or skine,

00:00:04.940 a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:10.420 I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day,

00:00:15.140 the thing that makes everything better. It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now. Go!

00:00:20.320 Go! How much better do you feel after the Simultaneous Sip? Well, I can't hear you,

00:00:34.960 so I'm going to rely on science. Yes, there's more science about coffee. Yeah, more science.

00:00:42.840 So now the science suggests that drinking coffee can improve your depression. So it can

00:00:51.800 decrease depression and it can lower your risk of suicide. Personally, I feel like living a little

00:01:00.120 bit longer because of that sip. And it turns out that people thought that coffee was maybe bad for

00:01:08.040 your heart or your blood pressure, but there's no long-term negative. It turns out it might be good

00:01:17.500 for your heart, might lower your risk of Parkinson's disease, and just generally is good for you in every

00:01:25.800 possible way. Helps you exercise more. Is there anything coffee can't do? No. No, there's nothing it

00:01:33.900 can't do. That's called science. It's called recreational science because when science agrees

00:01:40.240 with what I'm already doing, I call that accurate. That's called accurate science. When the science

00:01:47.060 tells me to do something that I don't feel like doing, I call that kind of questionable. I think

00:01:53.640 we're going to need further study on this issue. Well, there's more science that shows that thinking

00:02:00.420 hurts. Well, again, maybe you hear this too often, but they could have saved a little bit of money on

00:02:11.420 this one. If they had said, instead of spending whatever they spent on this study, if they'd simply

00:02:17.260 DM to me and said, Scott, we're thinking of doing a study, does thinking hurt? And I would say, oh,

00:02:24.700 don't do that study. Save your money. This one's free. It does. It hurts. That's why people don't do

00:02:32.920 it. It hurts. So yes, believe it or not, when people try to do complicated things that require

00:02:40.040 a lot of thinking, they don't like it because it hurts. Now, I would like to introduce a new concept

00:02:49.320 based on this, if assuming the science has any validity to it. Have you ever noticed that there's

00:02:55.380 something interesting about Elon Musk besides the fact that he seems to be unusually smart?

00:03:03.040 The other thing that really sticks out is that he seems to have a high tolerance for pain. Have you

00:03:10.020 ever noticed that? He has one of the highest pain tolerances I've ever seen. You know, so his famous

00:03:16.900 stories of not sleeping, you know, sleeping in the office all day long and working all day and doing

00:03:23.700 crazy hours and taking on all the abuse from, you know, the critics and everything else. And so it

00:03:31.900 makes me wonder if you were going to evaluate somebody's practical intelligence, their practical

00:03:39.700 intelligence, it wouldn't be just their genetic ability to think. It would also be their willingness

00:03:46.820 to take on pain. Literally. Meaning that it wouldn't matter if your brain was awesome if you didn't

00:03:55.460 like the pain of thinking. Because even if you're smart, whatever you're thinking about is going to

00:04:00.500 challenge you in a discomfort kind of way. So my observation is that maybe what makes Elon Musk

00:04:07.700 more effective than other people who maybe on paper would be almost as smart is that he just has a high

00:04:15.540 pain tolerance. And you see it in everything he does. It seems to be pervasive across all elements of

00:04:22.980 his activities. I would say that I have that going for me as well. I don't have a high pain tolerance for

00:04:30.820 physical pain. Don't like that at all. I'm not a fan of physical pain whatsoever. But I have noticed

00:04:38.420 that I can handle more mental pain than the average person. So I think that helps me. I think it makes

00:04:46.340 my whatever genetic intelligence I have, I think I can take it further than other people because I can

00:04:52.740 handle more pain of that specific nature. Anyway, Breitbart has a big story about the Shroud of Turin. You know,

00:05:02.580 the burial sheet that allegedly Jesus was wrapped up in after crucifixion. Well, Dylan Gwynn is writing in Breitbart

00:05:14.500 that scientists have figured out that it might in fact, the garment anyway, might in fact be dated back to the

00:05:23.540 the actual time of Jesus. Now, the people who had debunked this sheet being related to the actual historical

00:05:31.540 Jesus, they debunked it because they did a standard testing, carbon dating, and they found out it was not

00:05:41.780 nearly old enough. So when they carbon dated the material, the scientists, and this has been,

00:05:49.220 you know, I've known this to be true for decades. So for several decades, it was true that this was a

00:05:57.380 hoax because the garment was not nearly old enough. Well, now researchers have used a different method

00:06:05.300 of dating it. So rather than doing carbon dating, they used some kind of a microscope and looked at the

00:06:13.700 uh, looked at the details of it, the fabric, and then they compared it to other known fabrics.

00:06:20.660 So they looked at things where they knew they could date the fabric to a certain time.

00:06:25.380 Then they looked under a microscope and said, Hey, this looks like the fabrics from this time,

00:06:30.740 based on whatever, you know, micro elements are in there. And they concluded that the carbon dating of

00:06:38.100 the, uh, of the cloth was flawed.

00:06:43.940 Now, if you think this is a story about whether Jesus is real, it's not.

00:06:52.100 I don't have an opinion on that, and that's not what I'm interested in. I mean, it's interesting,

00:06:58.340 but I wouldn't say that Jesus is or is not real based on a piece of cloth. So, so the question of whether

00:07:04.260 Jesus is real, that's not part of the story, right? That's just a separate story. But did the science,

00:07:10.820 the part that interests me is that science had misdated this for decades, allegedly.

00:07:19.780 Now, the people who use the carbon dating may say that theirs is right. But has anybody ever doubted

00:07:27.940 that carbon dating is accurate? Have any of you ever said, How do they know it's accurate?

00:07:36.180 How do you know? Now, the specific complaint with this, um, this garment is that it had,

00:07:43.860 uh, it was basically had too many, uh, pollutants in it. It'd been, it wasn't a pure carbon dating

00:07:52.580 experiment. So perhaps if you're looking at a rock or a fossil, you might be more confident that

00:07:59.140 nothing polluted your experiment to date it. So the thinking is, there was something special about

00:08:04.980 this garment that made the carbon dating not work. But we didn't know that for decades,

00:08:12.980 if this is right. Now, the other question is, is the new information, right? Well, I don't know.

00:08:19.140 All I would like to introduce is the idea that no matter how sure you are that the scientists use their

00:08:26.180 magic tools, there's still a lot of assumptions going into this stuff. And that data is all made up.

00:08:36.820 You know, I've been saying this, it sounds hyperbolic. And it is. But I need you to get

00:08:43.860 closer to the idea that 100% of the things you see in the news, and 100% of the things you see from

00:08:50.660 science, no matter how credible that scientific entity is, you should assume it's not true.

00:08:58.900 Now, if later there's more confirmation, blah, blah, blah, or if you just have to make a pick,

00:09:04.100 because it's one of those situations where you can't just ignore the situation, you got to make a

00:09:08.580 choice. You know, like within the pandemic, you had to make a choice. You didn't have the luxury of

00:09:14.180 knowing for sure. You just had to take a choice. But just don't assume automatically that anything

00:09:20.820 here in the news or from science is correct. Not automatically. It might be. You should take it

00:09:28.180 seriously. So you should definitely take it seriously. But don't assume it's true because

00:09:33.620 it came from experts. Meanwhile, the University of Kentucky is demand is disbanding their DEI office

00:09:42.420 because Republican lawmakers were pushing some anti-DEI legislation. So they said to themselves,

00:09:50.740 well, if there's going to be anti-DEI legislation, let's get ahead of it and get rid of our DEI office.

00:09:56.900 So that's a victory, right? I saw some people on social media saying, yes,

00:10:01.300 it's a victory. We want to get rid of that DEI and we got rid of it. Well, there's some

00:10:07.540 little extra you should know about this story. Number one, it's being reported by the AP.

00:10:15.620 So how's your credibility rating? If it comes from the Associated Press,

00:10:21.460 do you automatically think it's true? Automatically think there might be some context missing?

00:10:28.020 Or automatically think it might be fake? What do you think? Well, the AP wouldn't be on the top of my

00:10:36.260 list of reliable sources, especially for anything political. But it did say, to its credit, the AP did

00:10:44.900 report that there would be no job loss. Wait, what? They have a DEI department and they're getting rid of

00:10:54.180 the function. But there's no job loss because the people in those jobs are being folded into

00:11:01.060 other departments. You know what's missing in this story? The employees that were doing DEI

00:11:10.180 that will not lose their jobs, but be folded into other departments to do what? Are they being retrained

00:11:18.580 for new jobs? Or are they going to do their same fucking job and they're just going to get rid of the 1.00

00:11:24.260 the words DEI and just do it from within a different department? The story doesn't tell you. 0.98

00:11:32.900 That's the main thing. The main point of the story is, are they still going to do this,

00:11:38.260 what I would consider illegal DEI stuff? Or did they say, oops, you caught us. We're not going to do it

00:11:44.580 anymore. You can't tell. The story is completely ambiguous about whether they did or did not decide to

00:11:51.220 get rid of their DEI. I'm a little suspicious. And so my guess is that they just changed the names

00:11:57.780 and they're going to keep it. That's what I think. What do you think? But it's in the news. So

00:12:08.420 it's in the news. So I don't study it. We will talk about the DNC. I'm just warming you up.

00:12:13.140 There's another study by the Medical Express is talking about this that finds that young people

00:12:22.580 surprisingly are very influenced by experts. And although they're of course influenced by influencers

00:12:31.460 on social media, the good news that's reported is that young people are more likely to believe an expert 1.00

00:12:38.340 than some random influencer, even if they follow them on social media. So that's great news, isn't it?

00:12:46.340 Oh, phew. So happy that young people will get their knowledge from experts and not from influencers.

00:12:56.020 That's all good, right?

00:12:59.380 Well, let me give you a little lesson on brainwashing. 0.98

00:13:04.420 Now, if you're new to my lessons on brainwashing, I come from it from the perspective of being a

00:13:11.700 trained and experienced hypnotist who writes about persuasion all the time. So it's my main domain

00:13:18.500 outside of cartooning, I guess. And here's a brainwashing professional tip. If you can convince

00:13:26.660 the public that the news is real, and you can convince the public that experts are usually right,

00:13:38.260 then you can convince the public of anything.

00:13:43.940 Let me say it again. If the public believes the news is usually true,

00:13:48.900 and if the public believes that experts, as reported by the news, are usually right,

00:13:56.900 then they can brainwash you on any topic instantly. How do they do it? They just find an expert who may

00:14:04.820 or may not be telling the truth to go on the news. Because then you've got an expert, and you've got

00:14:10.820 the news, and people will say, well, those are two things that boost the credibility. Obviously,

00:14:16.660 the news looked into whether it's true or not before putting it on. I mean, of course,

00:14:21.140 they're going to make sure it's true. You know, they're going to check with people,

00:14:24.020 they're not going to put a bunch of BS on. So if the news put it on, it must be true.

00:14:29.140 And then the experts talking, if the experts there, and you don't hear another expert,

00:14:34.100 you only get that one expert, or maybe a few experts on the same side. You say, well,

00:14:38.740 the experts say it. The news, of course, checked it. So it must be true. This is now my belief forever. 0.96

00:14:45.300 Now you add to that the siloing of the news, so that if you're on one side of the news, you only see

00:14:53.220 your news, and you never see any other expert or any other news. You're now done. That is a 100%

00:15:02.020 bulletproof brainwashing machine. All the government has to do, or the Democrats, is find anybody who can

00:15:10.420 say they're an expert and put it on the news. That's all the brainwashing. There's nothing else

00:15:17.140 you need to do. There's nothing else you need to do. There's no extra step. You just find an expert,

00:15:24.420 put it on the news. So we have a brainwashing system that is really effective. Now, I don't think

00:15:33.140 it's much different in other countries, but wow, is this bulletproof. There's nothing you can do about

00:15:39.620 this, by the way. There's no defense against this. This is 100% bulletproof brainwashing, and it works.

00:15:50.100 Which doesn't mean that 100% of things that are on the news from experts is false, just to make that

00:15:55.620 clear. It doesn't mean 100% is false. It just means you're always getting a version, a narrative,

00:16:01.380 a propaganda-biased version. That's always true. But sometimes it might even be accurate.

00:16:11.060 Well, how bad is the brainwashing? Well, PolitiFact, that's a fact-checking organization,

00:16:16.500 and somebody called Capital B. I have no idea who they are. They've announced an election year

00:16:21.620 partnership to counter political misinformation aimed at black audiences.

00:16:26.500 So if you didn't know anything about how anything works, what would you say about this?

00:16:35.540 Let's say you saw it on the news. Well, you'd say, huh, that sounds like a good thing,

00:16:42.980 because you don't want the black Americans to be lied to. Nobody wants that. And so you've got two

00:16:50.340 entities who you don't know much about, but they're probably experts, right? I mean, you wouldn't have

00:16:55.780 a group called PolitiFact checking facts unless they were some pretty good fact-checking experts,

00:17:02.980 you know what I mean? So you got some experts, and then I read about it on the news. Well,

00:17:09.460 so it must be true. It must be true that there's some misinformation, and they're going to clear it up.

00:17:14.660 Or, if you know anything about how everything works, the fact-checkers are almost always fake,

00:17:24.260 literally just fake, and they're part of the brainwashing operation. Always. It might be on

00:17:32.500 one side versus the other, but pretty much they're in the bag. Now, let me call out Snopes as being

00:17:39.940 recently an exception to that rule. Snopes did, in fact, finally debunk the fine people hoax,

00:17:46.980 the biggest, most dangerous hoax in American history. And so at least they're showing some

00:17:52.420 independence. I think that's worth calling out. I don't know why. I don't know why it took so long,

00:17:58.020 but it's worth calling it out as a sign of independence. Meanwhile, the U.S. birth rate hit a

00:18:04.980 new low. So according to the CDC, it's reported in The Hill. And I saw an interesting point of view

00:18:13.380 about this. I wish I had written down who said it. It's just something I saw on the internet,

00:18:17.380 and I saw Elon Musk agreeing with it. So forgive me for whoever the smart person is who said this before

00:18:26.900 I said it. So this is not my original observation, but it goes like this. If you have children,

00:18:36.020 you immediately started thinking everything about the future.

00:18:40.980 Now, how many of you have had that experience? So if you have biological children, you just started

00:18:46.580 thinking about their future. It's all just future thinking because you're trying to take care of your

00:18:51.220 offspring. But if you're single, you're a little bit more living in the moment. Like, hey, what do I

00:18:57.300 want today? Now, that sounds right to me. Now, here's the risk. The risk is that if enough people

00:19:07.220 are single, individually, that might sound like a perfectly reasonable choice in our free society.

00:19:13.860 Not everybody should have kids, probably. So if you're looking at it as just freedom, it's like,

00:19:19.780 okay, good. We got more options, more freedom. But what would happen if 40% of your public stopped

00:19:27.140 planning for the future and just planned to get through their own life? Well, they wouldn't care

00:19:33.380 about stuff like climate change because they'd say what I say, which is, well, I'll probably be gone

00:19:39.460 before that gets me. Now, that's assuming that you believe that it's a crisis. I don't believe it's

00:19:45.380 a crisis. I think it's a manageable issue. That's my personal belief. I wouldn't say that I'm 100%

00:19:54.980 certain, but it does look like there's some, you know, man-made elements in that I think we'll get

00:20:00.900 through it.

00:20:01.780 Ontario, the wait is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget Online

00:20:08.260 Casino is live, bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your

00:20:13.780 fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple. And in

00:20:19.540 just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top-tier table games.

00:20:25.220 Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn any mundane

00:20:30.420 moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots,

00:20:36.260 challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action,

00:20:41.380 all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold

00:20:46.060 at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem? Call ConnexOntario,

00:20:50.900 1-866-531-2600. 19 and over. Physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See

00:20:58.100 GoldenNuggetCasino.com for details. Please play responsibly.

00:21:02.340 But forget about climate change, because that kind of confuses the whole argument. The argument is,

00:21:09.240 would the United States fail for no reason other than too many people not caring about the future?

00:21:15.380 And my intuition, and I think Elon Musk as well, is yes. Yes. The risk is not just that you don't

00:21:24.420 have enough people to create a tax base to pay for the retirees. That's a big problem. But the problem

00:21:32.180 might be how we think as a public, and then how we vote. We might not even vote for the long-term benefit

00:21:39.380 of the country anymore, because we'd just be thinking shorter term. So that's sort of a really

00:21:45.540 big deal that I don't know how to weight it. It just feels like it could be a big deal that we haven't

00:21:51.860 talked about. Anyway, over in the UK, I see Aaron Sibarium from the Free Beacon is reporting

00:22:01.060 that apparently, if you say one of these things in the UK, you could go to jail for quite a long time.

00:22:09.460 Here are the things you can't say out loud in the UK without going to jail. Actual jail, like actual

00:22:18.100 jail. All right, here's one of them. It's okay to be white. 0.99

00:22:22.420 Jail. I'm not making this up. This is based on actual examples for real people who went to jail.

00:22:32.820 Here's another one. Reject white guilt.

00:22:38.500 Jail.

00:22:41.380 Now remember when I said it would be unsafe for me to travel to the UK? Do you believe me? Because

00:22:49.140 apparently these, the statements you make are not about the things you're saying today.

00:22:54.740 It's about something you've ever said. What do you think my social media looks like?

00:23:01.300 Do you think there's any chance I wouldn't be jailed in the UK? I mean, if they cared,

00:23:06.180 if they ignored it, I wouldn't be jailed. But if they wanted to jail me in the UK,

00:23:11.060 have I said enough online that would make me jailable? Yes. Quite obviously, yes. Let me say it

00:23:21.620 again. It's okay to be white. And you should reject white guilt. I embrace those two messages 100%. 0.51

00:23:30.420 So UK, fuck you assholes. Fuck you very much. I'm never gonna come near your fucking country. I'll 1.00

00:23:39.780 never go there again. I've been there once, and it was not impressive. Let me just say,

00:23:45.620 the food in the UK is garbage. The traffic in London is a disgrace. And the whole place looks 1.00

00:23:51.780 like it's falling apart from bad management. So no, I'm not gonna travel to your fucking piece 0.99

00:23:57.140 of shit country. I'm only talking about the government now. I like the people. People are fine. 1.00

00:24:02.100 And if I ever have any opportunity to do business in the UK, or to sell any of my products there,

00:24:11.860 I'm gonna try to shut that down. I don't even want to have financial interests, even if I benefit

00:24:18.420 from them in the UK. No, I just can't have anything to do with your country.

00:24:24.900 You're dead to me, basically. All right. Well, speaking of hate speech, Obama spoke at the DNC. 0.70

00:24:40.420 All right. But also, here's some things that Biden said recently.

00:24:45.220 So this is not Obama. This is Biden. We'll get to Obama. He said, how can we be the greatest nation

00:24:52.660 in the world without the best education in the system in the world? Donald Trump and the Republican

00:24:59.140 friends, they not only can't think, they can't read very well. This is what Biden said about

00:25:06.180 Republicans, that they can't think and they can't read very well. And the audience laughed. And he said,

00:25:14.420 seriously, think about it. Look at their Project 2025, which is, of course, a hoax.

00:25:19.540 They want to do away with a part of education, which is not true. Of course, they're just lies.

00:25:28.500 But talk about hate speech. Is it hate speech to say it's okay to be a certain demographic white?

00:25:37.060 Or is it hate speech to say you shouldn't be guilty just because the way you were born?

00:25:42.260 That's hate speech in the UK. But over in America, you can have the president say that half of the

00:25:49.700 country are fucking idiots. And he identifies them as Republicans. And that's okay. That's fine. 1.00

00:25:59.700 No problem. Well, I do appreciate that we have free speech. So if I had to pick one of these systems,

00:26:05.300 I would pick the one where Biden can lie in front of the public and say anything he wants about anybody.

00:26:10.660 And then we get to vote. So it's ugly. It's messy. But I'll take the free speech. Thank you.

00:26:19.460 Anyway, the DNC, if you want to know how well brainwashing works, there's a great little example

00:26:30.500 that somebody pointed out that Bernie Sanders gives his speech last night. And a lot of it was,

00:26:38.820 you know, rich people are bad. Rich people are bad. Do you think people cheered for that? You know, 0.94

00:26:43.860 the billionaires are stealing your money. Rich people are bad. Of course they did. Yeah. Yay.

00:26:48.980 Rich people are bad. They should share their money with the rest of us. So then Bernie gets done. And then

00:26:56.180 one speaker later, J.B. Pritzker gets up and starts mocking Trump's business success. And he tells the

00:27:03.860 crowd that they should take their advice from a real billionaire. And they clap like, oh, yeah,

00:27:10.820 the real billionaire. Yes. Yes. We support a real billionaire and not that fake Trump billionaire.

00:27:16.580 Yes. Yes. And not only is a real billionaire, he's fat. We love it. Fat billionaires. Yes.

00:27:26.420 But wait a minute. Didn't you just clap for Bernie Sanders who said all the fat billionaires should be 0.77

00:27:32.980 boiled down to render their fat into soap products? Okay. I may be exaggerating about that a little bit. 0.73

00:27:40.820 And it turns out that it doesn't matter what you tell the DNC crowd. Apparently, they're so brainwashed,

00:27:49.620 as long as it comes from their own team, they're all on board. It's like, hey, everybody,

00:27:55.860 we're going to start chopping the heads off of Democrats. Yes. Yes. It's been so long since I had my 1.00

00:28:03.140 head chopped off. Where's the line? Where can I get in the line? It's really weird to watch that

00:28:10.100 they'll agree with anything. If I watch a Trump rally, I watch people agreeing with Trump.

00:28:19.460 That doesn't seem weird to me, even when I don't agree with maybe the specific topic. It happens

00:28:27.700 sometimes. But it doesn't seem weird because Trump is typically just offering a common sense solution to

00:28:34.740 the stuff. And then people are saying, I like that common sense solution. What you don't see is one

00:28:42.020 speaker saying billionaires are bad. Another speaker saying billionaires are good and getting the same

00:28:47.140 applause. That's just weird. That's creepy weird to use their language.

00:28:54.100 All right. I've got a hypothesis about all the hoaxing that's happening at the DNC. So you've

00:29:04.260 probably noted that Biden had like six different hoaxes that have been debunked from the drinking

00:29:11.540 bleach to the fine people hoax to the everything else. And then you're seeing that the other speakers

00:29:17.620 are repeating the debunked, the most ridiculous debunked hoaxes. Now, at first, I said to myself, 0.79

00:29:25.140 oh, how can they be so misinformed? Or how could they be lying so badly? And, you know, to their

00:29:31.940 audience, you know, all the usual reactions you'd have. But I'm starting to think something else is

00:29:38.100 going on here. Because the the level of hoaxing that they did was way beyond anything I expected.

00:29:48.420 And here's what I'm wondering about. Is this intentional?

00:29:55.540 Do you think that the DNC, the wizards, the people behind the curtain who are the real persuasion

00:30:01.860 experts, do you think that at any time they said something like this? Hey, Kamala Harris's policies 1.00

00:30:10.420 are unclear. Her track record is not impressive. And we're not letting her talk to the press.

00:30:19.300 But it's the political season. So whatever we do, the press is going to be talking a lot

00:30:25.380 about whatever they have to talk about. Can we change what they talk about to make it less about

00:30:31.940 the errors that Kamala Harris has and more about anything else? Yes, we can. We can have our people

00:30:40.660 do nonstop debunked hoaxes on TV all day long until the Republicans go crazy talking to each other and

00:30:51.300 not the Democrats. Because remember, Democrats never hear what Republicans say. So they can make

00:30:58.020 the entire Democrat silo go fucking crazy, which they have successfully done. Because I watch it and 0.99

00:31:06.100 like my hair stands, I'm like, damn it, how can you be pushing the same hoax a million times in a row? 0.98

00:31:12.020 And then they keep doing it. And I say to myself, wait a minute. One of your influencers is an energy 0.98

00:31:22.180 monster. Do you recognize this play? This play, and I'm going to call it a play or an op, because it

00:31:30.500 looks intentional to me. I don't know. I can't confirm it. But as someone who, you know, is, let's say,

00:31:38.420 always looking at persuasion plays. The pattern I'm recognizing is they've moved from a talking

00:31:44.980 you into some truth into an energy model. It's the Trump model. The thing that works so well for Trump

00:31:52.420 is he moves energy. He gets you excited about a thing, and you don't care about the hyperbole,

00:31:58.260 the fact checking. So Trump has consistently won as an energy monster, meaning he can tell you 15 things

00:32:07.860 that don't pass the fact checking. But if they're directionally true and they get you excited and it

00:32:12.420 gives you something to talk about, we're all in. You know, as long as it's in the right direction.

00:32:18.820 I don't care about the details of whether it passed the fact check too much, because I've noticed it

00:32:23.380 never matters. I can't think of anything Trump's ever told me or the country that was both wrong

00:32:31.380 and mattered. Can you? I can't think of an example. Lots of things that I would say,

00:32:38.420 okay, technically, that's hyperbole. That's not exactly true. But nothing that ever hurt me.

00:32:45.140 It was always the right direction. Whereas the Democrats seem to be playing a different game.

00:32:50.580 It does look like, you know, actually damaging stuff. Like the hoaxes are just so bad,

00:32:54.980 it's bad for division in the country.

00:33:00.180 Bank more encores when you switch to a Scotiabank banking package.

00:33:04.660 Learn more at scotiabank.com slash banking packages. Conditions apply.

00:33:09.860 Scotiabank. You're richer than you think.

00:33:12.980 So I think that the smartest people on the Democrat side, which are very smart,

00:33:19.540 you don't want to underestimate them. Whoever it is that is now advising the Harris campaign

00:33:27.060 is at a different level. All right. The normal level is, hey, look at our policies.

00:33:34.660 They're better than your policies. That's regular politics. You don't need any geniuses to come up

00:33:40.260 with those ideas. But whoever came up with the idea of let us flood the zone with hoaxes

00:33:47.780 and make the Republicans burn up all their energy spinning about how these hoaxes are not true,

00:33:53.700 it will use up all of their time, all their space. And we know that it will never reach Democrat voters.

00:34:02.580 And that's what's happening. I spent a whole bunch of time debunking hoaxes. And I saw all of the usual

00:34:10.340 hoax debunkers who do it with me and also are just doing it on their own, spending all their time

00:34:16.820 debunking things within the silo. All that energy is wasted. It's all wasted energy. And they did that

00:34:26.580 to me. And I'm thinking, OK, I'm supposed to be a little bit clever about this stuff because I at

00:34:32.100 least I pay attention to the persuasion things. And I think I got had. I feel like they they got me on

00:34:39.060 this one. I'm going to score this. I'm going to score that a win on points for the other team.

00:34:46.260 I think they won this round. And I think it's intentional. I can't prove it. I'm not 100% on

00:34:54.580 this. But I've got I've got like a 70 80% confidence that it's an intentional plan to flood the zone with

00:35:04.100 hoaxes that Democrats think are true or at least recreationally. They think it's true enough

00:35:11.060 to have fun with it. And it just burns off all the Republican energy debunking it. I think that's

00:35:16.980 what's happening. And it's working. It's really working well. Well, the apparently the viewership of

00:35:28.420 the DNC is down 22% from 2016. I don't know if that's telling me anything because I feel like

00:35:36.340 television watching is probably down 22% since 2016. Am I wrong about that? I mean,

00:35:44.420 you know, normal broadcast television, it's got to be down 22% since 2016. But if there's something

00:35:52.980 else going on, it would be interesting, because I would say that Hillary Clinton got more attention 0.93

00:35:59.300 than Kamala Harris. Maybe, you know, I wouldn't, I wouldn't put too much weight in the fact that the

00:36:07.460 viewership is down. Well, you all noticed that the polls were saying that Trump was going to win

00:36:16.980 like crazy and nobody liked Kamala Harris. And then suddenly everybody liked Kamala Harris,

00:36:23.220 and she's beating Trump in a lot of polls. And you said to yourself, is the brainwashing that good?

00:36:30.900 Did it work that fast? That the Democrats just said, oh, suddenly the worst candidate we've ever seen,

00:36:37.940 couldn't even make it past the first round in the primaries, is now the best candidate.

00:36:42.100 And our best hope for winning and blah, blah, blah. And she's great. Well, here's the other possibility.

00:36:55.300 So let's see, pollster John McLaughlin was talking about this. Was it on just the news? I think it was.

00:37:04.420 Said that they're basically the pollsters just started polling a disproportionate number of Biden voters.

00:37:09.540 Yeah. So John McLaughlin, a pollster said this on just the news, the no noise television show.

00:37:18.580 And so McLaughlin is saying that all they do is just oversample Democrats.

00:37:23.700 So if you want your poll to say that, that Harris is winning, all you have to do is ask more Democrats

00:37:30.740 than Republicans who they're going to vote for. Think about that. That's all it takes.

00:37:37.460 And then the other pollsters who don't do it, there aren't that many, but like Rasmussen, for example,

00:37:44.500 Rasmussen will look at it and say, no, you oversampled Democrats. If you don't oversample,

00:37:50.740 the number is Trump's still ahead. And we'll talk about that. Actually, let's talk about it now.

00:37:57.540 So Rasmussen still has Trump up and Rasmussen still has the generic Republican beating the generic Democrat

00:38:07.460 by a good margin, like five points. That's the margin that in 2022, if I recall correctly,

00:38:16.820 that Rasmussen also had Republicans up by five and they ended up adding nine seats.

00:38:25.860 So the current Rasmussen poll, which is transparent about what percentage of the public they're polling

00:38:34.900 as Democrats or Republican. Now, keep in mind, you know, I'm not the expert that can tell you which polls

00:38:41.060 are always accurate. I don't have that ability, but I can tell what is transparent. And Rasmussen tells

00:38:48.100 you exactly their mix. And they say the other people are gaming the mix. You can look for yourself,

00:38:55.940 you know, because even the ones that are gaming it, if you look in the details, it will show that

00:39:00.900 they gamed it. It's just people don't look at the details. So how could you be sure that that's what's

00:39:08.820 happening? That the, let's say the mainstream Democrat leaning pollsters are gaming the system?

00:39:17.700 How could you be sure that was true? Well, one way would be to see if it doesn't apply to the polls

00:39:23.700 that you don't think would intentionally game the system. So the ones that do show Trump is ahead in

00:39:30.820 a two-way race would be Fox News, Rasmussen Reports, and CNBC. And all the other ones show that

00:39:38.340 Harris has got a one to four point lead. Now, if you looked at these polls, Fox News,

00:39:47.140 Rasmussen, CNBC, would you find any obvious flaws? Nobody's mentioned any, you know, it's not,

00:39:55.700 it's not for me to really know that, but I haven't heard anybody mention it. But certainly,

00:40:01.220 certainly Rasmussen and others experts like McLaughlin do point out that the ones that are

00:40:08.180 pro-Harris are very clearly gamed by oversampling Democrats. So this isn't one of those situations

00:40:18.420 where you can be 100% sure from the outside what's going on, but it looks very much like that's what's

00:40:24.500 going on. If I had to bet on it, I would bet this is exactly what's happening, that the polling is fake.

00:40:32.020 When they get closer to the real election, all the pollsters will want to finish close to the reality.

00:40:39.700 In the beginning, they don't need to, because you can't really hold them to it, because you don't

00:40:44.260 know what the actual answer is in the end. But once it's close to the election, what you'll find is that

00:40:50.100 all the pollsters will start polling the right number of Democrats, and then suddenly it's going to shrink

00:40:56.180 to look like it's really close. And I would argue that it's too big of a coincidence that we're

00:41:03.780 always this close in our elections. And if you were some kind of intelligence unit or deep state entity

00:41:10.740 that tried to rig an election, the thing you would try the hardest to do is make sure the election would

00:41:16.820 look close on election day. You'd want it to look as close as possible. That way, no matter which way the

00:41:23.540 election goes, people will say, well, I didn't know for sure the other one was going to win.

00:41:30.420 It was so close. So I guess I can accept that it went slightly different than I expected.

00:41:37.060 It's not that different.

00:41:38.180 So if the system is gamed and rigged, you would guarantee if they were good at it. But if they

00:41:47.780 were good at it, you would guarantee that it would always be close on election day,

00:41:52.740 if any rigging is planned. But we're close right now.

00:41:59.300 So Kamala Harris has proposed a 45% long-term capital gains tax. That'd be the highest in history. 0.79

00:42:06.100 And also a 25% tax on unrealized capital gains for rich people. But nobody believes that they would

00:42:13.860 keep it for rich people. Because once you took all of the rich people's money, it wouldn't come close

00:42:18.820 to paying off the debt or paying all the things they wanted you to pay for. So they would test it

00:42:24.020 on the rich people. If they get away with it, they'd have a model that they could start moving down the

00:42:29.460 income levels. So that's what people expect. It's not what she says. It's just what reasonable people

00:42:36.340 expect that it would get extended. So if you combined that 25% tax with state taxes, in many states,

00:42:46.260 you'd be taxed over 50% on unrealized gains. Unrealized gains. Now, if you're not a finance person,

00:42:55.060 let me explain this. The majority of my current net wealth is in unrealized gains.

00:43:05.860 Meaning that for most of my career, in the early part of my career, I got some extra money and just

00:43:11.540 put it in an index fund 25 years ago. Now, it turns out if you had some extra money 25 years ago,

00:43:18.900 and you put it in an index fund. It was, first of all, good for the economy, because my money is

00:43:24.340 in the stock market. That's good for the economy. But currently, since I kind of spent or donated or

00:43:33.380 invested all of my income after that, I was kind of running on spending it all, basically, as long as

00:43:39.700 other people were benefiting families for kids and stuff like that. And currently, probably

00:43:48.900 80% of my net worth or 90%. I think 90%. 90% of my net worth is unrealized gains.

00:43:59.380 Just think about that. The government wants to take half of it.

00:44:05.220 I worked my entire life with the specific idea that at this point in my life, most of my net wealth

00:44:12.660 would be unrealized gains. And then if I need it, I'll realize the gains and spend it and pay my taxes.

00:44:20.740 So imagine working your whole life and having the government randomly take half of it.

00:44:27.460 That's the situation I'm in. Now, most of you, if you're being reasonable, are saying something like,

00:44:35.780 oh, my tiny violin is so sad that you've got this problem, Scott. Because if you're not rich,

00:44:42.420 it just sounds like a rich guy whining, which it is. It is a rich guy whining.

00:44:48.100 But you can't really build a system that makes your most productive people totally screwed.

00:44:54.980 You can't have people who own farms and own businesses and have all this

00:44:59.620 unrealized gains in their real estate, etc. You would be wiping out boomers pretty hard. 1.00

00:45:06.100 Again, once the standard gets moved down to lower incomes,

00:45:11.060 and we expect that that would be a natural progression.

00:45:14.260 So how do people think about that? Well, Elon Musk said this path leads to bread lines and ugly shoes.

00:45:21.540 Bread lines and ugly shoes, meaning communism. That's one of the funniest comments on

00:45:31.220 communism I've heard, bread lines and ugly shoes. Now, that's persuasive, because nobody wants ugly 0.94

00:45:38.740 shoes, especially Democrats. All right. But here's my question. And to me, this is hilarious.

00:45:47.380 Harris still has some billionaire supporters. How could you be a billionaire and support Harris

00:45:58.580 after she just said she's going to take a quarter of half or half of your money? 0.68

00:46:06.340 You know what I would do if I were a billionaire supporter of Harris? You know what I would do?

00:46:10.580 I would sell my I would sell my NBA team right away.

00:46:18.020 Before she gets in office.

00:46:20.900 Has anybody done that? Is there anybody who is a major billionaire supporter of Harris who has recently sold their

00:46:30.420 sold their NBA interests so that they won't have any unrealized gains when she becomes?

00:46:35.940 Oh, they have. Oh, apparently somebody did that. Oh, well, that's exactly what I would do if I knew that was coming,

00:46:44.580 because maybe I knew what the advisors were telling her. I would sell. Oh, I'll tell you, if I had an NBA team, I'd sell that.

00:46:54.420 Have we heard from Reid Hoffman?

00:46:59.300 Somebody said I haven't confirmed this, but somebody said Reid Hoffman wants to know more about it.

00:47:05.940 How in the world, how in the world is Reid Hoffman going to go in public and support this plant?

00:47:14.980 Because he knows it's a bad idea. Everybody smart knows it's a bad idea, but it would be extra bad for him specifically.

00:47:23.300 It'd probably take like a billion dollars from him.

00:47:26.580 Imagine you're Reid Hoffman, and you're putting all your time and money into this party, and then suddenly they come up with the, okay, and one last thing.

00:47:36.820 Thank you for all the help. We really appreciate all the donating, you know, and just one more thing.

00:47:44.340 We kind of need you to give up a billion dollars.

00:47:51.940 I think that's what he's going to work for.

00:47:53.940 So what would a reasonable rich person say under these circumstances?

00:47:58.020 Well, let's look at Jason, one of the four people from the All In Pod.

00:48:06.420 Jason is one of the ones of the four who most closely, I think, identifies with more left-leaning than right.

00:48:14.580 And he's been, for the Democrats, not a Trump supporter, even though others, you know, at least two people on the All In Pod were Trump supporters, Sachs and Chamath.

00:48:29.220 And he said this in a post.

00:48:32.340 He said if Kamala Harris and Tim Walsh go for the wealth tax on unrealized gains, that is A, unconstitutional, and B, disqualifying for me.

00:48:44.580 At Grey Goose, we believe that pleasure is a necessity.

00:48:49.780 That's why we craft the world's number one premium vodka in France, using only three of the finest natural ingredients,

00:48:56.260 French winter wheat, water from Jean Sac, and yeast.

00:49:01.780 With Grey Goose, we invite you to live in the moment and make time wait.

00:49:06.020 Sip responsibly.

00:49:12.500 There you go.

00:49:14.580 So here's what I love about the All In Pod.

00:49:19.060 It's not exactly political.

00:49:22.180 They talk about all the politics, so the topics are political.

00:49:26.580 But the four of them are not really political.

00:49:30.340 They're four super smart, capable people who just understand how everything works.

00:49:36.720 Now, I think you can be a super smart, capable, practical person and be either a Democrat or Republican.

00:49:46.080 Until this year.

00:49:47.920 Now you can't do it anymore.

00:49:50.720 No, there's no such thing as being a smart, common sense, well-informed person and also being a Democrat.

00:49:58.320 You can't do it this year because they're fully into batshit, crazy territory.

00:50:05.040 This is not normal.

00:50:07.120 Trump, as I often say, I can't think of a single thing he's ever suggested, whether I liked it or not.

00:50:13.760 I'm not saying I like everything that Trump's ever suggested.

00:50:16.240 But they all fit into the category of common sense.

00:50:21.600 You maybe have to dial back some hyperbole, but it ends up all being directionally common sense.

00:50:27.360 But the stuff that's coming out of the Democrats are things that every smart person knows would ruin the country.

00:50:33.520 Everyone, Reid Hoffman would know, Mark Cuban would know, Jason knows, they all know it.

00:50:41.760 So if they still, you know, double down for their team, something else is going on, right?

00:50:49.080 Now, it could be just people don't like to change their mind in public.

00:50:52.800 Could be that.

00:50:54.760 Could be something else.

00:50:57.040 I don't know if there's something else is, but it's probably not good.

00:50:59.900 So kudos to Jason for simply being about what makes sense.

00:51:10.400 Like, I have complete respect for that.

00:51:12.780 Just be about what makes sense.

00:51:14.540 And everybody knows this would be a terrible, terrible idea.

00:51:19.520 All right.

00:51:20.540 So here's my take.

00:51:22.300 I think this race, unlike any other prior race, we've left the realm of politics.

00:51:27.420 This doesn't feel like a difference in political opinion to me, where every other race has.

00:51:36.620 You know, you got your Republicans, you got your Democrats, they've got, you know, somewhat different ideas.

00:51:41.100 So it's about politics.

00:51:43.240 This is not about politics.

00:51:45.840 Whatever this is that we're observing is common sense things like close the border.

00:51:52.180 Don't overtax, you know, don't, don't rape your taxpayers, just ordinary stuff.

00:51:59.760 Don't get overexcited about climate crisis if the other countries are not doing their part.

00:52:04.900 Very basic stuff.

00:52:07.120 Common sense.

00:52:08.660 And if somebody says to me, but Scott, why are you registered as a Democrat, but supporting Trump?

00:52:15.380 To which I say, it has nothing to do with Democrat or Republican.

00:52:19.620 I don't even really think about those things.

00:52:22.200 I just look at, well, is that a good idea?

00:52:25.280 Yes.

00:52:26.060 Okay, I like it.

00:52:27.320 Is that a good idea?

00:52:29.060 No.

00:52:30.220 Well, okay, I'm against it.

00:52:31.940 Because you can usually tell what a good idea is.

00:52:34.380 You just look at the incentives.

00:52:35.580 You look at what people have done before that would be in that vein that would inform you about the future stuff.

00:52:42.220 It's not hard to know what is common.

00:52:45.660 You know, I mock common sense because we all imagine we have it.

00:52:49.260 But there are some things that every smart person will agree on.

00:52:53.440 Right?

00:52:53.860 I've never seen a smart person argue for keeping the borders as porous as they are.

00:53:00.560 Not really.

00:53:03.160 I've never seen that.

00:53:04.440 Even the people who are behind it, make sure that they don't comment on it in public.

00:53:10.860 Have you ever seen Alex Soros give an interview about how the current rate and flow of immigration is a good idea?

00:53:19.340 No.

00:53:20.420 No.

00:53:20.980 I mean, he might be sort of generally pro-immigrant, but everybody is.

00:53:25.980 So, no.

00:53:27.380 All of the smart people are on the same side.

00:53:30.000 And if you're a public smart person, you're going first.

00:53:34.440 All right.

00:53:35.520 Elon Musk is a public smart person.

00:53:38.460 Boom.

00:53:39.180 Trump supporter.

00:53:41.060 The, you know, Sachs and Chamath are public smart people.

00:53:46.480 Boom.

00:53:47.620 Trump supporters.

00:53:49.100 Bill Ackman is a public smart person.

00:53:53.040 Boom.

00:53:53.820 Trump supporter.

00:53:54.380 RFK Jr.

00:53:56.380 RFK Jr.

00:53:58.280 Well, maybe.

00:54:01.360 You know what RFK Jr. is?

00:54:04.280 He's a public smart person.

00:54:06.060 And it turns out that Alex Jones is reporting.

00:54:12.880 He has a source, he says, that he believes that RFK Jr. will announce on Friday.

00:54:18.320 And I don't, I'm not seeing this confirmed from other sources.

00:54:22.500 So, use your judgment about the reliability of the reporting.

00:54:27.240 But he's thinking that on Friday, RFK Jr. might throw in with Trump.

00:54:32.120 And, you know, presumably there would be some opportunity in the future for him to work with

00:54:39.360 the administration in some capacity that would be unnamed.

00:54:42.640 Now, does that sound like that might happen?

00:54:49.760 I don't know.

00:54:50.880 Let's look at what RFK Jr. is saying.

00:54:57.180 Here's something that RFK Jr. said that is not about this topic.

00:55:01.680 But I want you to listen to how he talks about this topic.

00:55:06.280 And you tell me, does that sound more like somebody who would be a Trump supporter?

00:55:09.720 Or more like somebody who would be a standard Democrat supporter, right?

00:55:14.460 Here's RFK Jr. recently.

00:55:17.520 Quote, the COVID pandemic was used to fundamentally change the relationship between U.S. citizens

00:55:22.860 and their government.

00:55:24.440 The government's public health response was not a medical response, but instead a test

00:55:28.940 of technocratic power to see how the population would respond to totalitarian edicts masked

00:55:34.920 as medical intervention.

00:55:36.220 The government also selected the lockdown winners and losers, transferring nearly $4 trillion

00:55:41.940 of wealth from the middle class and small business to Silicon Valley and big box stores.

00:55:47.760 There have been no corrections and no apologies because the government wants to be able to do

00:55:54.320 it again.

00:55:54.760 Now, he says, that is why we're hearing all the hoopla now about the monkey box and bird

00:56:00.700 flu and yet more experimental vaccines.

00:56:04.100 We cannot let this happen again.

00:56:06.400 We must resist.

00:56:09.020 Who's that sound like?

00:56:11.400 Now, Trump has not said this.

00:56:14.560 Trump has not said this.

00:56:16.720 Who does it sound like?

00:56:18.640 Well, it doesn't sound like Harris.

00:56:20.340 It sounds the opposite of Democrat.

00:56:25.380 It sounds more like the Republican base.

00:56:29.340 It doesn't sound like Trump because he hasn't said this as directly as the base does.

00:56:34.380 But the base says this every day.

00:56:37.980 The ordinary Republicans say exactly, exactly, exactly this every day.

00:56:44.560 Is it a coincidence that RFK Jr., you know, two days before Friday, comes out with something

00:56:52.820 that matches perfectly one of the most emotional, important issues to the Trump base?

00:57:01.000 Well, it doesn't look like a coincidence.

00:57:06.200 How about his VP choice, RFK Jr.'s VP choice, Nicole Shanahan?

00:57:12.060 What did she say recently?

00:57:13.520 She just said Kamala Harris's economic plans, particularly her flawed ideas about price 0.97

00:57:20.880 gaps on food and the misconception that farmers are responsible for price gouging, echo the

00:57:27.040 very policies that caused, listen to this, echo the very policies that caused the famine

00:57:33.120 my family suffered through in Mao's communist China.

00:57:37.380 Our path forward as a nation lies in supporting our farmers who care for our land and produce

00:57:43.360 the real nutritious food we rely on.

00:57:45.900 Who's that sound like?

00:57:47.760 Does that sound like Kamala Harris talking there?

00:57:50.940 No, because she's actually directly saying that Kamala Harris would turn us into a famine-ridden 0.95

00:57:57.280 death country.

00:57:58.540 Does it sound more like Trump?

00:58:05.100 Well, yes.

00:58:08.020 I mean, it does sound more like Trump.

00:58:09.440 But what it sounds even more like, what it sounds like more than Trump, is Trump's base.

00:58:15.240 I mean, Trump's in the same domain as this idea, but this matches the base perfectly.

00:58:25.200 So what if I told you about RFK Jr.?

00:58:28.960 One of the things that makes him extra interesting is that I said, whether he agreed with the

00:58:36.480 Republicans or backed them or not, I said, he fully understands how they think and feel.

00:58:44.560 Do you get it now?

00:58:45.940 He fully understands how Republicans think and feel.

00:58:49.620 That doesn't mean he has to agree with them all the time.

00:58:51.680 But he fully understands how they think and feel.

00:58:56.380 Nicole has done her podcast.

00:59:00.540 I guess you could call it campaigning, which is good technique.

00:59:04.400 You know, she's a single mom.

00:59:06.660 So she's having podcasts.

00:59:08.800 And the people that she invites on her podcast were people like me.

00:59:13.460 So I was on her podcast.

00:59:15.980 So does Nicole understand what Republicans think and feel?

00:59:21.680 Even if sometimes she would disagree with them.

00:59:24.000 And the answer is yes, absolutely.

00:59:27.040 She's proven it.

00:59:28.260 And she's she's done it publicly.

00:59:30.560 She talked in person publicly with a whole bunch of people on the left and the right.

00:59:36.180 So, yes, she absolutely knows what Republicans are thinking and feeling.

00:59:41.340 Do you want them on your team?

00:59:43.380 I do.

00:59:44.020 Oh, yes.

00:59:46.520 You know, be on my team, please.

00:59:50.060 All right.

00:59:53.240 I think I had a couple of things that I wanted to talk about first.

00:59:59.800 All right.

01:00:00.340 So Trump went on the Theo Vaughn podcast.

01:00:03.440 I guess what's notable about that is that Trump is really the the perfect podcast guest, isn't he?

01:00:15.700 When Trump goes on a news show, it's just combat.

01:00:18.900 And the combat is kind of repetitive and doesn't look fun and you're fake news.

01:00:24.720 And then the fake news makes him reply to a hoax.

01:00:28.780 And then he says, that's a hoax.

01:00:30.260 You're fake news.

01:00:31.100 I mean, it's all just the same thing.

01:00:33.260 But if he goes on a podcast, you don't know where it's going to go.

01:00:36.860 And you get to really see the real person in a situation that's not scripted.

01:00:43.460 Trump is great.

01:00:45.640 I feel like every time you see one of these, you watch the podcaster fall in love with him.

01:00:51.360 Have you noticed that?

01:00:53.280 Whenever Trump does a podcast, by the time he's done, it's just almost you can see it.

01:00:59.020 Like the podcaster doesn't just enjoy that they had the experience. 1.00

01:01:02.840 It's like they fell in love with the fucking guy. 1.00

01:01:05.080 He does have that power. 1.00

01:01:07.240 He's got the thing.

01:01:08.560 He's got the X factor.

01:01:10.360 And I'll say it for the millionth time.

01:01:13.740 As much as I love seeing him talk to podcasters, especially interesting ones who are not your traditional ones,

01:01:21.620 I'd love to see him talk to some Democrats, the voters, only the voters.

01:01:29.600 But my God, how much do you want to see that?

01:01:33.900 I want to see it so much.

01:01:35.460 Now, I don't necessarily think he needs to go on, you know, Charlemagne the God's podcast.

01:01:42.560 Although I give Charlemagne a lot of credit.

01:01:45.260 He's an interesting addition to the conversation.

01:01:49.020 Right.

01:01:49.100 Wherever he goes, he's interesting.

01:01:52.080 That's all I ask.

01:01:53.360 Right.

01:01:53.520 I think he's in it for the right reasons, as far as I can tell.

01:01:57.840 I mean, I think he'd like the country to do better, etc.

01:02:00.980 But I don't think he's the right fit for Trump.

01:02:06.040 I'd rather he talk to just a regular voter who was just curious.

01:02:10.180 And just say, can you explain why you're in favor of this?

01:02:14.500 And then just have Trump explain it.

01:02:16.720 I would love to watch that.

01:02:17.760 I would watch that all day long.

01:02:18.960 Searchlight Pictures presents The Roses, only in theaters August 29th.

01:02:24.740 From the director of Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things, comes The Roses, starring Academy Award winner Olivia Coleman, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Samberg, Kate McKinnon, and Allison Janney.

01:02:37.460 A hilarious new comedy filled with drama, excitement, and a little bit of hatred, proving that marriage isn't always a bed of roses.

01:02:45.600 See The Roses, only in theaters August 29th.

01:02:48.340 Get tickets now.

01:02:51.100 Well, according to Liz Harrington, so here's something that I see because I'm plugged into a certain part of the Internet.

01:02:57.480 Every single day, I see one or more than one reports about credible-looking, I don't know how credible they are, but credible-looking reports of confirmed election rigging.

01:03:12.100 Now, when I say confirmed election rigging, I mean that's what the report says.

01:03:18.240 Do I know that it's confirmed?

01:03:20.120 I don't.

01:03:20.720 Because, unfortunately, these are the kind of claims I just look at and go, well, I don't know who this person is.

01:03:27.500 They've made some claims.

01:03:28.580 I can't check them.

01:03:29.480 I don't know.

01:03:30.580 But they sure look believable.

01:03:34.020 I mean, they're persuasive as hell.

01:03:36.660 And there are a lot of them.

01:03:38.680 So, here's one.

01:03:41.060 There's a claim that over 6,000 votes were fraudulently inserted into the Fulton County hand count audit.

01:03:48.400 Now, if I understand this correctly, the allegation goes like this, that the machine count didn't match the hand count.

01:03:58.340 And since they didn't want to go public and say, uh-oh, we're way off and our hand count doesn't match our machine count,

01:04:05.780 allegedly there's evidence, I don't know if it's proof, but there's evidence, that what might have happened,

01:04:12.800 and again, I'm going to say might, and I don't know the credibility of any of these reports,

01:04:17.520 that the people doing this true-up just double-counted some ballots so that they could have the two systems match.

01:04:27.340 Now, is that possible?

01:04:33.340 Could it be as obvious as somebody did a recount and it didn't match, so they just rigged it so it didn't match?

01:04:40.740 I mean, that's really right on the nose.

01:04:43.660 So, those are the times I get a little suspicious.

01:04:47.540 It's a little too close to too simple.

01:04:51.380 I don't know.

01:04:53.580 So, I'm going to say I'm very curious about all of these claims,

01:04:58.660 but it would probably be a huge mistake to assume that all of them or even half of them are going to pan out.

01:05:07.700 But what if some of them do?

01:05:09.920 I mean, there's so many.

01:05:11.040 You do that laundry list persuasion thing where if there's enough on the list,

01:05:15.240 your automatic common sense says, well, the list of claims is so long that even if some of these are not right,

01:05:22.700 there must be some that are true.

01:05:24.780 I don't know.

01:05:26.080 I don't know if that's true.

01:05:27.660 It could be that none of them are true.

01:05:31.000 But boy, do they look true.

01:05:34.780 If I had to bet my life on it,

01:05:37.420 I would bet some number of these claims of rigging are exactly what they look like.

01:05:42.100 If I had to bet my life on it.

01:05:43.740 But, that's only if I had to.

01:05:47.940 I'd prefer not, because I'm not sure.

01:05:52.140 But, I always go back to whether or not we have found any irregularities.

01:05:56.440 We have designed a system that appears to be designed more for hiding the outcome than for revealing it.

01:06:03.620 So, if you have a system which appears in every way to be more designed to hide an outcome than to give you a real one,

01:06:10.300 I think that you should assume there's a reason for that.

01:06:12.720 And I do.

01:06:14.900 And that's different from having any proof.

01:06:16.980 I just look at the design of the system and say,

01:06:19.220 well, that design should give you a non-credible election every time.

01:06:25.980 You be the judge.

01:06:29.040 All right.

01:06:29.540 Let's see what else is going on.

01:06:34.700 So, the IDF, the Israeli military, has done some airstrikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah sites.

01:06:46.120 And there were a number of different attacks.

01:06:48.040 Let's see.

01:06:48.440 They hit a weapons depot, an air defense site,

01:06:51.740 and they took out some leader, Abu Ushash, a Hezbollah operative in some buildings.

01:07:00.200 Now, does that sound like an escalation?

01:07:03.160 Well, it's more than I've heard Israel doing in one day in that direction lately. 0.66

01:07:08.220 So, you know, I always start with the assumption that Israel is smart,

01:07:14.340 and then I analyze everything they do from that perspective.

01:07:18.160 I think that usually works.

01:07:20.400 I mean, presumably there are some times when they don't do something smart.

01:07:25.520 But it's my first filter.

01:07:28.160 I just say, okay, if you were smart, what am I seeing?

01:07:32.600 So, the first thing I'm seeing is it looks like they ratcheted up their attacks on Hezbollah during the DNC.

01:07:39.320 Do you think that's a coincidence?

01:07:41.920 Do you think it's a coincidence that Israel is going in behind the cover of the news being, you know, 0.65

01:07:48.440 saturating in the DNC?

01:07:50.200 I doubt it.

01:07:51.600 I doubt that's a coincidence.

01:07:52.800 Now, because my starting filter is that Israel is smart, 0.82

01:07:58.040 would they intentionally do a little uptick in violence during the DNC?

01:08:05.920 Yes.

01:08:06.740 That's when I'd do it.

01:08:08.640 If it were me, that's what I'd do.

01:08:10.580 Now, suppose Israel has already decided that they would rather have Hezbollah actually do a serious attack

01:08:18.980 because they need to provoke it because the timing is right now for their action because we'll be between presidents, right?

01:08:27.440 Next several months, the leadership of the United States is going to be a little shaky.

01:08:31.840 We know that.

01:08:32.760 It's like, I don't even know who the president is.

01:08:34.720 So from Israel's perspective, again, if you assume that they're just always operating from smart, 0.62

01:08:41.180 they would say to themselves, this next several months, we can get away with the most stuff in terms of public opinion

01:08:49.180 because we'll just be diverted.

01:08:51.180 We'll be looking somewhere else.

01:08:52.380 And so they might be prodding Hezbollah and Iran for a bigger response.

01:09:01.340 So one possibility is that Israel isn't just warning them to stay silent,

01:09:08.220 but rather is intentionally poking them because Hezbollah will now have to send more rockets,

01:09:14.940 which Israel can then respond a little extra hard again.

01:09:19.020 And then Hezbollah will say, well, I mean, we might as well just send a thousand rockets 0.79

01:09:24.060 if you're just going to keep doing this.

01:09:25.880 And then they send their thousand rockets.

01:09:28.220 The Iron Dome knocks most of the men in the air.

01:09:30.960 And then Israel has a free pass to get rid of Hezbollah once and for all. 0.98

01:09:37.020 And I think everything's heading in that direction.

01:09:41.100 And I think that the reason it seems like things might be compressed

01:09:45.420 is because Israel will never have in their whole history a better opportunity to be super violent 1.00

01:09:53.160 against the people who would kill them first if they had a choice.

01:09:57.920 So everything is suggesting that it's going to get really hot there really fast.

01:10:03.100 But not unless Hezbollah takes the bait. 0.84

01:10:10.220 So I believe that Iran and Hezbollah have decided to stand down

01:10:13.680 and maybe not do the super big response.

01:10:17.080 And I think Israel's daring them. 0.91

01:10:19.280 Say, hey, where's your big response?

01:10:22.180 How about that big response? 1.00

01:10:24.160 How about we kill a couple of your leaders? 1.00

01:10:25.960 How about now? 1.00

01:10:27.200 Big response?

01:10:28.220 How about that weapons depot?

01:10:29.560 Gone.

01:10:30.420 Don't you wish you had that?

01:10:32.140 Big response?

01:10:32.840 Big response?

01:10:33.800 I'm not touching you.

01:10:34.820 I'm not touching you.

01:10:35.940 That's what it feels like.

01:10:38.480 Well, there's more news about the story about drunk Kamala

01:10:42.320 or the allegations that she's drunk in public

01:10:45.000 and it's been captured on video a number of times.

01:10:48.880 I was looking at an article from Vivek Saxena, BizPak Review.

01:10:56.780 And Vivek is talking about this issue

01:10:58.600 and the people on the right making these accusations.

01:11:01.800 But here's a sentence that made me laugh.

01:11:06.000 It said, this is from Vivek in BizPak Review talking about Newsweek.

01:11:11.280 And Vivek says, according to Newsweek,

01:11:13.960 the drinking rumors began with Trump campaign insider James Blair,

01:11:18.700 who tweeted basically about it.

01:11:21.060 Does that sound right to you?

01:11:24.820 That the rumors about Kamala Harris drinking started with James Blair?

01:11:32.420 Is that check?

01:11:34.100 Fact check?

01:11:36.080 You've all heard of something called the Gelman amnesia

01:11:39.700 because I talk about it all the time.

01:11:42.080 That's that situation where if you know the story,

01:11:45.380 like you have some personal connection to a story,

01:11:47.580 you know the news is always wrong.

01:11:51.320 But if you don't have a personal connection,

01:11:53.240 you think, well, that news is probably true.

01:11:55.600 But every time you know something,

01:11:58.320 you can tell it's false.

01:11:59.720 Every time.

01:12:02.000 Is this one of those cases?

01:12:05.340 Well, here's what I know.

01:12:06.740 I know for sure James Blair didn't start that rumor.

01:12:13.620 Anybody want to disagree with that?

01:12:16.600 Now, you all, I would consider somewhat insiders on this topic

01:12:20.700 because you've been watching on social media,

01:12:23.420 you know, that how I and a whole bunch of other people

01:12:26.280 have been talking about this for a long time

01:12:29.040 and very loudly before James Blair made the first mention of it.

01:12:33.620 So I know that this is fake news.

01:12:37.700 I know that James Blair didn't start anything.

01:12:41.060 In fact, I know that the reason he felt safe mentioning it

01:12:44.300 is that it was already saturated in social media.

01:12:48.800 But Newsweek told you it's coming from the campaign.

01:12:51.740 Why would they do that?

01:12:53.740 Why would they say it's coming from the campaign

01:12:55.640 instead of it's coming from every single Republican

01:12:58.940 who has seen the videos?

01:12:59.900 Well, if they say it comes from the campaign, 1.00

01:13:04.660 everybody knows that's bullshit. 0.99

01:13:07.020 Because if they said something, no matter what it is, 1.00

01:13:10.260 if you said it came from the Harris campaign,

01:13:13.760 what would you say?

01:13:15.580 You'd say, I don't even need to hear it. 1.00

01:13:17.340 It's bullshit. 1.00

01:13:18.240 Because everything that comes from a campaign 1.00

01:13:19.820 is always bullshit. 1.00

01:13:21.260 Always. 0.99

01:13:21.600 So if you say, everybody who's looked at the video

01:13:27.860 has the same opinion, because she certainly looks,

01:13:30.720 whatever is the truth,

01:13:32.640 a lot of ordinary people look at it and say,

01:13:35.720 yeah, it looks drunk to me.

01:13:36.980 And a lot of those people are police officers

01:13:39.360 who've had lots of experience with drunks.

01:13:41.600 People who themselves have had addiction

01:13:44.040 who say, yeah, I recognize it.

01:13:45.740 That's it.

01:13:46.380 People have family members who've been in that situation

01:13:49.320 and say, oh, I wish I couldn't recognize it, but I can.

01:13:53.260 So you're talking about a situation

01:13:55.340 which is close to a fact,

01:13:57.940 which is lots of people looking at the videos

01:14:02.460 and saying, okay, that's definitely drunk.

01:14:05.720 And by the way, if that's not drunk,

01:14:07.940 it's a bigger problem.

01:14:10.060 Right?

01:14:10.500 If that's not drunk,

01:14:12.760 there's something wrong with that woman. 1.00

01:14:15.800 We better figure out what that is.

01:14:18.000 So the fact that she has completely different personalities

01:14:20.860 when she's appeared,

01:14:22.960 like when I mentioned when she was at the DNC,

01:14:25.620 did she look drunk when she did her appearance at the DNC?

01:14:29.000 No, not even a little bit.

01:14:31.880 You could even twist your mind

01:14:34.400 into imagining she was inebriated.

01:14:36.360 Not even a little.

01:14:36.920 That's why when you see the videos

01:14:40.560 where it very clearly looks like she is inebriated,

01:14:43.300 it means something

01:14:44.460 because it's not a normal situation,

01:14:47.180 even for her.

01:14:50.380 So gel man amnesia, 0.67

01:14:52.020 just know that all the news is fake

01:14:53.540 because every time you see the news

01:14:55.300 that you know about,

01:14:58.520 that's always fake.

01:15:01.060 All right.

01:15:01.560 Obama gave his speech last night.

01:15:03.700 I watched a little clip of it. 1.00

01:15:05.060 Of course, it was full of hoaxes and lies and bullshit. 1.00

01:15:07.880 But here's what I noticed. 0.99

01:15:09.420 He looked very uncomfortable and awkward and sweaty.

01:15:15.620 So, you know, I guess maybe just

01:15:17.600 they couldn't figure out the temperature.

01:15:20.800 Did they have an AC problem?

01:15:22.480 I've never seen Obama look like

01:15:24.540 Richard Nixon debating Kennedy before,

01:15:27.580 but he did.

01:15:28.640 He didn't look comfortable or happy whatsoever.

01:15:32.060 So I was kind of expecting to watch Obama

01:15:35.340 just to be impressed by his skill.

01:15:39.440 You know, I've told you before

01:15:40.680 that I've always been impressed with Obama

01:15:43.760 as a politician,

01:15:45.280 you know, like Bill Clinton.

01:15:47.200 Skill is skill, right?

01:15:48.760 It's the same thing I say about Trump.

01:15:51.020 You know, aside from policies,

01:15:52.640 you just have to give them full credit

01:15:55.180 for having incredible skill.

01:15:57.720 Clinton, Obama, Trump, incredible skills.

01:16:01.840 Which Harris doesn't have.

01:16:08.820 Was that militant?

01:16:10.500 All right.

01:16:11.120 Got a few more drunks in the comments.

01:16:15.060 I feel like there was something

01:16:16.260 I haven't gotten to yet,

01:16:17.340 but probably I did.

01:16:18.980 So, ladies and gentlemen,

01:16:21.140 that concludes my prepared marks for today.

01:16:25.060 Do you know that if you're still looking

01:16:28.140 for some entertainment for the year,

01:16:30.040 that my book,

01:16:32.120 Reframe Your Brain,

01:16:32.940 is changing people's lives?

01:16:35.220 Have you ever looked at the reviews

01:16:37.300 for the people who read my book,

01:16:39.080 Reframe Your Brain?

01:16:40.940 They're incredible.

01:16:42.400 And it's one of those books

01:16:43.500 that actually does change your life.

01:16:46.720 Almost certainly.

01:16:47.340 I mean, it's about as guaranteed

01:16:50.380 as anything could be.

01:16:52.380 Now, what's interesting is

01:16:53.480 it's a book full of reframes,

01:16:55.340 different ways to look at ordinary situations.

01:16:58.140 And most of them won't be the ones that you need,

01:17:01.500 but they'll make you look like a genius.

01:17:04.620 So if you read all the reframes

01:17:06.100 and somebody comes to you someday

01:17:07.340 and says,

01:17:07.960 I have this problem,

01:17:09.020 you'll know what to say.

01:17:10.260 It's like, well,

01:17:11.180 why don't you reframe it this way?

01:17:12.580 So it turns you into the smartest person

01:17:15.580 in your environment

01:17:17.260 because you'll have reframes

01:17:18.640 for things in every category.

01:17:22.440 And if there's even one,

01:17:24.200 if there's even one in the entire book

01:17:26.940 that fits your situation,

01:17:29.140 it's life-changing.

01:17:30.560 And I hear about that all the time.

01:17:32.180 People message me and say,

01:17:33.700 change my life,

01:17:35.900 you know, this one reframe.

01:17:37.240 And they're different ones.

01:17:38.340 People have different reframes

01:17:39.380 that hit their fields.

01:17:41.600 But if you don't like that,

01:17:43.920 you can say you might want to get

01:17:45.860 the version two of

01:17:47.120 How to Fail at Almost Everything

01:17:48.140 and Still Win Big.

01:17:49.300 Not much different from version one.

01:17:51.100 It's just a better edit.

01:17:53.400 And this is the most influential book

01:17:55.420 in the field of personal success.

01:17:58.000 Other books borrow liberally from it.

01:18:01.980 And if you didn't know,

01:18:03.200 my book, God's Debris,

01:18:04.580 which is one of the top selling

01:18:07.020 or top rad e-books of all time,

01:18:10.060 it's also a regular book,

01:18:11.600 is now God's Debris plus the sequel,

01:18:15.660 all in the same book.

01:18:17.360 It's called The Religion War, 0.99

01:18:18.740 the sequel.

01:18:19.320 And then a new short story at the end

01:18:20.900 called Lucky House that I wrote

01:18:22.740 just to fill it out.

01:18:25.340 That one's fiction,

01:18:27.460 but philosophical fiction,

01:18:28.920 so it'll make you think.

01:18:30.920 And Win Bigley version two

01:18:33.960 is going to be out pretty soon.

01:18:36.240 And...

01:18:36.400 Sabrina looks rich. 0.94

01:18:41.600 Sabrina,

01:18:42.820 let me give you some advice

01:18:45.020 while you're drinking

01:18:45.900 and shouting in all caps.

01:18:48.360 You sound like somebody

01:18:49.660 who believes something

01:18:50.460 you saw on social media

01:18:51.900 from Andrew Tate.

01:18:52.940 You should not be proud of that,

01:18:59.620 that you believe something

01:19:00.760 that Andrew Tate said about me.

01:19:03.440 Don't be proud of that. 1.00

01:19:05.320 That is you being a drunken cunt. 1.00

01:19:09.420 So, if you have more to say, 1.00

01:19:11.220 just jump in with your all caps.

01:19:12.700 All right.

01:19:15.940 Ladies and gentlemen,

01:19:17.120 I'm going to talk to the locals,

01:19:18.640 people privately.

01:19:19.940 But anyway,

01:19:20.240 I was going to say that

01:19:21.000 Win Bigley is going to be reissued

01:19:22.860 with some updates.

01:19:24.740 I'll tell you about that

01:19:25.760 when it's available.

01:19:26.840 And also,

01:19:27.920 don't tell anybody,

01:19:29.800 but the Dilbert calendar

01:19:31.340 is almost ready to be announced.

01:19:34.980 Not ready.

01:19:35.660 It's not ready.

01:19:37.100 But it's almost ready.

01:19:39.060 I've looked at the prototype

01:19:40.240 and just a couple more tweaks.

01:19:42.620 And we'll have the first

01:19:44.020 Made in America Dilbert calendar.

01:19:47.840 The first one.

01:19:49.940 So, cancel me if you will,

01:19:52.260 but at least I get to do things

01:19:53.560 my way now.

01:19:54.660 All right, everybody.

01:19:55.380 I'm going to talk to the locals,

01:19:56.580 people privately.

01:19:57.620 Thanks for joining on X

01:19:59.060 and Rumble and YouTube.

01:20:01.440 I'm going to say goodbye,

01:20:02.520 but I'm going to wait 20 seconds.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - August 21, 2024

Episode 2573 CWSA 08⧸21⧸24

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript