Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 2591 CWSA 09⧸08⧸24

00:00:00.000 Human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and aren't you glad you're here?

00:00:04.620 But we're going to take this up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny,

00:00:08.820 shiny human brains. And for that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or

00:00:15.020 stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like

00:00:21.160 coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that

00:00:26.120 makes everything better. It's called The Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now. Go.

00:00:35.400 Ah, the Sunday version. So, so good. All right, we're going to talk about some funny science and

00:00:45.220 then some funny news stuff and then some funny politics, but we're going to talk a little bit

00:00:51.560 in detail about RFK Jr.'s policy plans for fixing our drug and food situation. He's got a big article

00:01:02.160 in the Wall Street Journal. I'll summarize that for you because it's really interesting. But first,

00:01:09.000 there's some science that says that there was a study done that says that women tend to give more

00:01:16.120 money to attractive men. So I assume this means in the business context. To which I say, well, you know

00:01:24.580 what I say, right? You could have saved a little time and money by just asking Scott, hey, Scott, we

00:01:33.380 were going to spend $100,000 on this study to find out if women tend to give more money to attractive 0.98

00:01:39.360 men. And I would say, ho, ho, for $10,000, I'll give you an answer. And they'll say, really? That

00:01:46.260 would save us $90,000. And I'd say, I know, I know. Here's your answer. Yes. Yes, they will. And if

00:01:55.280 you're wondering if they will do other things for attractive men, yes, yes, they will. Now I'm going

00:02:02.520 to give you a little extra. I know I didn't even promise this, but suppose, just suppose you turned it

00:02:08.380 around. And the question became, would men give more money to attractive women in every context? Yes. Yes,

00:02:19.600 they would. In every context. There, safety, $90,000. Here's another one. Science found out that

00:02:31.640 the higher your IQ, the less you drink alcohol. So the lower your IQ, the more likely you're going to

00:02:41.980 have problems with drinking too much. Huh. And they're trying to figure out the hypothesis for why.

00:02:50.600 And one hypothesis is, quote, one suggested explanation for the association between intelligence

00:02:57.920 and health, and health, is that cognitive skills enhance possibilities to make healthy lifestyles

00:03:03.500 choices. Now let me translate that from science into normal talk. It turns out that a science

00:03:14.720 studied to find out if smart people make better choices. You know what I'm going to say.

00:03:22.840 You could have saved a little money on this one too. Hey, Scott, we're thinking of doing a study. It's

00:03:31.480 going to cost a million dollars. And the study was going to look into, do people with high IQ make

00:03:39.320 better choices? And I would say, hold on, hold on. For merely $100,000, I can answer that. And they're

00:03:47.060 like, really? We would save $900,000 if you could do that. I go, watch me, watch me. People who are

00:03:56.300 smarter, hold on, listen to this, make smarter decisions across a whole range of domains, including

00:04:07.600 lifestyle choices. But there's a second explanation. Also, you could have asked me, if you were low IQ,

00:04:16.920 you might have some other things going on in your life, such as lower income, maybe things aren't

00:04:23.380 working out so well for you in general, which means that your happiness might be lower than

00:04:29.700 somebody who is finding out that their life is working out because they keep making smart choices.

00:04:35.440 And so if you're not happy, this brings into the conversation what I call my pleasure unit

00:04:42.420 hypothesis. The pleasure unit hypothesis. I wrote about this in 2013. And before that,

00:04:49.800 in my book, Hadfield, Almost Everything and Still Win Big. And it goes like this. Humans require a

00:04:56.900 certain amount of pleasure daily on average, or they will just kill themselves. They just can't live

00:05:03.880 without some amount of pleasure. You can't go through every day with everything being bad.

00:05:08.700 You just won't last. So if you don't have access to clean, healthy fun, you're going to go the other

00:05:18.940 way. And you're going to find, well, at least I can have a drink or do a drug. So you need some

00:05:24.720 pleasure. So does it make sense that people who have high IQs, and maybe the rest of their life is

00:05:31.340 working out too, because they made good choices. Do they have access to healthy pleasures? Yes.

00:05:38.680 Because they've worked out the details of their life. So they have access to good vacations and

00:05:43.260 stuff like that. So for two reasons, you would expect IQ and alcohol to be related. One is smart

00:05:51.800 people make smarter choices, and they know alcohol is poison. So they just try harder to stay away from it

00:05:56.660 and all of the things that are bad for them. And the other is, they don't need to get bad sources

00:06:03.060 of pleasure because they have more access to good sources of pleasure. Should have asked me.

00:06:09.380 Well, you know, I'm a nerd when it comes to new energy sources and whatnot. But the Oak Ridge

00:06:14.820 National Laboratory used a supercomputer, not AI. Apparently, you need a supercomputer more than you

00:06:22.580 need AI for this. To make a new kind of material that gives you a 21% advantage in power in ways that

00:06:30.980 are not well explained. But I just have to say this. Probably the most dynamic and exciting part of

00:06:39.380 science at the moment is materials. Just making material. Because if you can make a material that's

00:06:46.740 stronger and lighter, well, suddenly you saved like a ton of energy for making your airplanes.

00:06:52.420 If you can make materials that have certain qualities that you couldn't make before,

00:06:56.340 then suddenly you've got a battery that doesn't catch on fire and is much better than regular

00:07:00.980 batteries. But material science is never sexy because it's never the finished product.

00:07:07.940 Right? A car is sexy. A phone is sexy. But the materials that go into all the parts,

00:07:14.180 not so sexy. But wow, there's just amazing things happening. And I think AI plus supercomputing

00:07:20.740 are going to see more of these big breakthroughs of new materials. Anyway, that's some good news.

00:07:26.740 The Washington Post is getting mocked. Here are two headlines. One from before she was chosen to be the

00:07:37.300 candidate for president. And one after. See if you can determine any change in tone.

00:07:42.660 So before she was the candidate, she was just the vice president. The Washington Post had a headline.

00:07:50.100 Now these, I think, are more opinion pieces. But the headline was a Kamala Harris staff exodus

00:07:56.340 reignites questions about her leadership style and her future ambitions. Well, that's kind of negative.

00:08:01.940 Yeah. Staff exodus. Reigniting questions about her leadership style. Oh, yeah. Dumping on her. 1.00

00:08:09.460 But then after she gets nominated, here's the Washington Post again. Kamala Harris ran her office 0.96

00:08:16.180 like a prosecutor. Not everyone liked that. Huh. Suddenly, they've turned massive staff turnover

00:08:24.820 into a slightly positive thing. The first time they framed it, it sounded like she was an incompetent

00:08:32.020 leader and nobody wanted to work there. The second time they framed it, she was a demanding leader with 1.00

00:08:37.140 high standards and you'd better meet those standards or you're not going to last long in that high

00:08:41.460 performance atmosphere. Anybody notice a difference there at all? A little bit of difference of tone?

00:08:48.580 And then the Washington Post is also being mocked for, there was this visit the Harris made to a spice

00:08:56.260 store. I didn't even know there were spice stores, but apparently there's a spice store in Pennsylvania.

00:09:04.660 And she went into one and one of the Washington Post writers decided that the story to write that day

00:09:12.420 was which spices she bought. So somebody actually posted on X just a list of the spices she bought at the store.

00:09:21.700 Yeah. He was severely mocked by Glenn Greenwald and other people. Anyway, that's what Washington Post

00:09:28.820 writing looks like. An embarrassing profession. Anyway, more about that spice store. So there's a

00:09:35.860 viral clip where Kamala Harris is hugging some older white lady who's crying about, I think she's crying

00:09:44.420 in happiness because Harris is there or something. I don't know. But people are saying it was all staged

00:09:52.580 and the store was a famously anti-Trump store. So the store has put anti-Trump, you know,

00:10:01.700 marketing stuff. You know, don't, we don't even want you to shop here if you're a Trump supporter.

00:10:07.140 I mean, really dark stuff. And they got a lot of publicity, but I can't imagine it worked out for

00:10:15.460 them because it looks like the owner of it is some deranged looking leftist. And he's got those crazy 0.98

00:10:23.780 eyes and the one photo I saw, you know, the crazy eyes, the leftist eyes look like this. If you're only 0.96

00:10:29.940 listening to this again, you're missing a great impression of leftist eyes.

00:10:35.540 Hey, look at my smile that doesn't match my eyes. That's kind of creepy.

00:10:41.940 Yeah, you don't see that on the right. I'm not saying the people on the right are all,

00:10:46.420 you know, error free and they do all the right things. I'm just saying they don't have that specific

00:10:51.060 facial expression. There is a facial expression that you just don't see in conservatives for whatever

00:10:58.580 reason. I don't know. Anyway, the Wall Street Journal printed a story about AI and Elon Musk

00:11:10.820 took a few hours before the X platform outed it as fake. So it was a fake story. They got everything

00:11:18.580 wrong. Elon Musk weighed in and said, Nope, this is not true. Just completely wrong.

00:11:24.420 So you don't even need to hear the details because it was all wrong. And then the guy who posted it

00:11:32.420 said it was the fifth time that the Wall Street Journal has had an incorrect article just about

00:11:38.100 XAI. So that's your news. I love the fact that you can see in real time the,

00:11:46.100 the, um, the, uh, the, what's the name of the effect I'll remember in a minute. Um, the,

00:11:54.180 the Gelman amnesia effect, where if you know the truth, because the stories about you or some

00:12:00.500 expertise you have, you know, that the news is uniformly wrong. But if you think, if you don't

00:12:06.580 know anything about the story, you just read it and go, well, that's probably right. So imagine being

00:12:11.380 Elon Musk and reading stories about himself every day. How many of those stories about himself do

00:12:19.540 you think are accurate? 20% at best, probably 20%, maybe less.

00:12:29.940 Anyway, um, so Harris's latest hoax is the Affordable Care Act, uh, and that Trump wants to

00:12:38.180 get rid of the Affordable Care Act that you might call Obamacare. Now, what is the truth of that?

00:12:44.340 Is it true? Kamala Harris just said it, said Donald Trump intends to end the Affordable Care Act,

00:12:50.260 which would take us back to a time where insurance companies had the power

00:12:54.020 to deny people with preexisting conditions. What does Trump say about preexisting conditions?

00:13:01.860 He absolutely does not want that. He's not going to make it worse. His take on the Affordable Care Act

00:13:09.700 is that, yes, he does want to replace it with something better. And if he can't come up with

00:13:18.020 something better, he will not replace it. Now, that's actually saying nothing.

00:13:23.940 Am I wrong? Let me give you an example of some other things this would apply to.

00:13:34.020 I'm going to get rid of NASA, but only if I can come up with something better than NASA.

00:13:41.140 So are you getting rid of NASA? No, unless you could magically come up with something better.

00:13:48.020 I don't know. Or maybe outsourcing it all to Elon Musk might be better.

00:13:53.300 Now, it's a general statement that you're not going to change something unless you can figure

00:13:59.460 out how to make it better. That's all Trump is saying, that he thinks he can make it better. But

00:14:05.540 if he can, he won't change it. It's not really much to worry about. And he definitely doesn't want

00:14:12.900 you to not be able to get health care because of pre-existing conditions. I'm pretty sure he's

00:14:18.260 on board with the pre-existing conditions part. Now, so you've seen how bad the news is. And you've

00:14:25.860 seen that the politicians are lying to us about really easily checkable... I mean, you just had

00:14:31.220 to Google it. And you can see that it's not true that Trump just wants to get rid of it and go back to

00:14:36.340 where we were. No, that has never been part of his stated or even, I assume, nobody would think that

00:14:43.060 way because that would be sort of a dumb way to think. So if you know that the news we're seeing

00:14:49.220 is not true, and you know that the politicians are all lying, what does that tell you about our history?

00:14:56.340 Do you think our history was all accurate? You know, I've said a few times you should watch,

00:15:02.660 there's a show on Netflix called Wyatt Earp and the Cowboy Wars. It's the worst title for a show

00:15:10.420 you've ever heard, but ignore the title. It's really interesting because there's a real world events,

00:15:17.060 but you're going to see that the judicial system was 100% corrupt in those days. It's based on real

00:15:23.860 stories, by the way. You can see that politics and even the selection of the president, 100% corrupt,

00:15:30.980 100%, just everything's completely corrupt. Big business, 100% corrupt. And that's where we were

00:15:38.900 just in the 1800s, 100% corrupt in every system in the United States. Business, politics, the courts,

00:15:48.020 100% corrupt. 100% corrupt. And you think we grew out of it, right? 0.99

00:15:57.380 It's not likely. It's not likely that any of that changed. It's likely that it found out how to hide

00:16:04.340 better. It may have changed form, but no. Now, when I say the justice system is corrupt,

00:16:11.460 I don't mean the everyday cases. You know, I think if you rob a bank, probably the justice is roughly fair.

00:16:20.980 All right. Can we stop showing shortlist pictures of me in the comments? All right. That's sort of dickish

00:16:32.100 behavior. Yeah. During the show, it's bad form. So don't do that anymore, please. Anyway, what was I

00:16:44.260 talking about? Oh, so this brings me to the question of Churchill. So revisiting the fact that Tucker had

00:16:52.740 a historian on named Daryl Cooper, who said that, it's hard for me to paraphrase a long conversation,

00:17:02.340 but effectively that Churchill was more of a bad guy than a good guy when it came to World War II,

00:17:09.060 and may have been responsible for some bad outcomes that plague us still today. Now, is that true?

00:17:18.020 Do you think Churchill is the Churchill that you learned about in school? Or is Churchill closer to

00:17:24.180 what Daryl Cooper said? Or is neither of those true? And there's something that's sort of in the middle

00:17:30.420 that's true. I don't know. How would I know? How would any of us know?

00:17:35.620 If we can't tell what's true today, how in the world could we tell what was true then,

00:17:43.380 given we know that the news is fake, that politics is fake, business is fake? It's all fake.

00:17:52.020 So, but there's a second part to this story. Have you noticed that conservatives are sort of

00:18:02.100 getting on each other lately? You know, skip ahead.

00:18:07.860 Hey, Dave Richardson here. Between rallies and sell-offs, bulls and bears, markets move fast.

00:18:13.620 It can be hard to keep up. Join me on the download podcast as I chat with investment

00:18:18.420 experts from all around the world to help you make sense of what's happening in the markets

00:18:22.900 and the global economy. Go to the download on Spotify to get the latest episode and to subscribe.

00:18:29.460 So, I feel like there's all these little arguments that are happening

00:18:39.940 among Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers. And I wonder how much of this is natural.

00:18:47.700 It looks natural. I mean, it looks organic, like things just happened to pop up and people disagreed on

00:18:54.100 them. But it's kind of weird that right before the election, there's this huge multi-battle thing

00:19:02.660 going on where a bunch of conservatives all found reasons to be mad at each other.

00:19:08.260 Kind of weird. I don't know what's going on there. But this one struck me especially.

00:19:14.100 So, Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee, founder or CEO or both, I don't know, of the Babylon Bee,

00:19:25.700 got into it with Tucker Carlson. I think he made some comments on X and then Tucker Carlson

00:19:33.300 must have contacted him by text and they had some exchange and then they both talked about it.

00:19:40.260 So, Tucker's version of what happened suggested that Seth texted him, but the wording is a little

00:19:48.180 ambiguous. I'm not sure he said that. He just said that he texted. But Seth objects because he wants,

00:19:56.900 I guess he wants you to know that Tucker texted him first, but then there was some back and forth.

00:20:01.380 So, when Tucker says that Seth texted him, I don't think he was necessarily implying that he texted

00:20:09.540 him first, just that what they talked about was in text form. So, but let's see. So, so first,

00:20:20.500 Seth fact-checked him on that. And he said the text to express outrage about the Daryl Cooper guy,

00:20:29.700 because the Daryl Cooper guy was, some are saying, a little too favorable to Hitler.

00:20:38.580 I'll just say that other people say that so you can leave my opinions out of this for now.

00:20:42.820 And then there's some disagreement between Tucker's version of Seth Dillon's opinion and

00:20:52.420 Seth's own opinion of his opinion. Now, typically, I like to look at people's own opinion of their

00:20:58.100 opinion, not other people's explanation of their opinion to figure out what is true.

00:21:03.380 So, the question is whether he expressed outrage or did he mock him? So, Seth is saying he mocked

00:21:15.700 Tucker. Tucker's saying he expressed outrage. And then some other words that were interesting

00:21:20.820 is that Seth said he thought it was pretty wild. So, this is Seth explaining his own approach. He said,

00:21:29.620 it was pretty wild. I explained that to see a Hitler apologist platformed and praised effusively by

00:21:35.540 Tucker Carlson. And Tucker said in reply, platformed? You mean spoke to? I said, yeah,

00:21:44.420 you spoke to him on your platform to purposely amplify his voice. And that has understandably

00:21:49.540 raised some eyebrows. And then that gets into the question of censorship. So, does it seem to you that

00:21:59.220 Seth Dillon was applying some citizen to citizen censorship? You know, not legally, of course,

00:22:07.940 but putting pressure on people to stop doing that? Because I feel like that might have been Tucker's

00:22:15.700 feeling. Because when he said platformed, you mean spoke to? So, here's the question. Although nobody's

00:22:24.180 saying that he's saying that Tucker doesn't have free speech, and he can platform anybody wants,

00:22:28.900 and he can amplify anybody wants. Because he is the number one podcaster in the world.

00:22:37.860 So, I guess he gets some rights to do things within the law.

00:22:41.300 But I think I see the, yeah, it's easy to see both sides of this, isn't it? On one hand, I'm 100% in

00:22:55.380 favor of Tucker Carlson putting offensive, non-standard people on the air to hear what they have to say.

00:23:03.380 I'm equally happy when the people who don't like that say publicly, here's why I don't like it and

00:23:10.980 why. So, I appreciate Seth Dillon weighing in so we can see his, how he feels about it, and probably

00:23:17.620 not too different from how a lot of people feel about it. So, to me, this is all good. This is the

00:23:25.060 free speech I like. I like it where Tucker Carlson puts on somebody that other people say, oh my god,

00:23:32.020 why are you amplifying and platforming this? But we hear that too. As long as I can hear the

00:23:38.580 platforming and the amplifying, but I can also hear Seth Dillon and others say, hey, I'm not sure

00:23:45.620 that amplifying this particular point of view is good because we don't think it's accurate or whatever

00:23:52.260 our problem is with it. So, on one hand, you can say to yourself, hey, here's some unhealthy

00:23:59.860 conservative to conservative disagreement. And then I would disagree and say, no, you're just

00:24:06.980 seeing the healthiest thing that could ever happen in a republic. Somebody put a voice on that is deeply

00:24:12.340 disturbing. And somebody said, that's deeply disturbing. And then I got to hear both.

00:24:18.740 I got to hear the opinion and I got to hear the opinion about the opinion. I'm done. Good job,

00:24:24.500 both of you. So, I'm going to give a compliment to both of them. This is the fight I want to see.

00:24:30.740 I want to see you fighting over the question of, you know, whether it was good to platform them,

00:24:38.500 but not the question of whether it's a right. And it wasn't questioned. So, Dillon did,

00:24:43.780 Seth Dillon did not question whether he had the right to do it or it made sense to do it or anything.

00:24:50.020 He just made sure you saw the other opinion. Good for him. So, I hope it doesn't cause any long-term

00:24:59.700 anything. It's a good, healthy sign. You may have heard this story. So, Jack Posobiec has a new book.

00:25:10.820 Joshua Lyssek is part of that, part of the book writing process there and getting it independently

00:25:18.340 published. And so, the first day it's going to be available, it shows up on Amazon with a porn,

00:25:26.180 a porn title instead of the actual picture of the book. So, it's an accident. So, accidentally,

00:25:35.220 the book that would probably have a, I assume, by the way, it's called… Let me give you the title

00:25:45.620 of the book. It's called Bulletproof. And it's the first book about the assassination attempt on Trump.

00:25:53.460 Now, given that the assassination attempt happened really recently, the first big book that gives you

00:26:00.900 a point of view on this that's presumably a positive one for Trump is going to make some news. It's going

00:26:09.940 to make some waves. And it hits. And I don't know if you know how book publishing works, but since

00:26:16.420 everybody's trying to make a bestseller list, if your first few days of publication get botched,

00:26:22.820 you're not going to make the bestseller list. If the first week, like you get a lot of good

00:26:30.580 positive attention, well, then maybe you hit the bottom of the list, and then when you get on the

00:26:35.540 list, it becomes self-fulfilling. So, the entire game of book publishing is sort of a first-week game.

00:26:42.900 Every now and then, there's a book that has been around for a while and people discover, but it's very rare.

00:26:48.580 So, book publishing is a first-week game.

00:26:54.660 This is probably only available on Amazon, but I'm not sure. And Amazon just took them completely

00:27:00.580 out of the game by having a mistake on the cover. Now, is that an accident?

00:27:09.220 Have you ever heard of this happening, ever? That somebody put on a conservative

00:27:14.260 leaning book and it got a porn cover on the first week, accidentally? I've never heard of it.

00:27:22.020 So, you really have to ask yourself, did that happen by chance?

00:27:26.740 Did it? You know, the only way you could know for sure

00:27:31.380 is if somebody else had, let's say, another independently published book

00:27:36.100 that was positive for Trump that also got some kind of a glitch. So, if that happened at the same

00:27:44.820 time, you'd say to yourself, huh, that's two of them right before the election, huh?

00:27:50.180 My book, Win Bigly, is about to be republished with a second edition and an update. Do you know why

00:27:58.580 I haven't told you it's already available?

00:28:00.260 Yes. There's a glitch in the system. Can't figure out what's wrong with it yet. We're trying to figure out why.

00:28:11.780 Yeah. Two for two. Two for two. Now, to be fair, the process of independent publishing

00:28:24.260 is fraught with natural errors. So, it's not the first time I've been through the cycle because I,

00:28:30.500 you know, Joshua and I did a few other books already. So, it is an error prone, just amazingly error prone,

00:28:38.500 almost every step. We were hitting some kind of a problem that we'd never seen before and weren't

00:28:46.020 sure who to talk to to even fix it. It's like one problem after another, the same weird nature. Well,

00:28:52.100 we've never seen this before and we're not even sure how to fix it or maybe we'll fix it in a week.

00:28:58.500 You know, just all of this impossible to fix stuff. So, let me just say this. It's called Bulletproof.

00:29:08.820 It's Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lysak. You can order it now. I'm pretty sure they won't send you the porn

00:29:16.180 book. I think they'll send you the real one. And if you'd like to see a Trump-related book

00:29:22.580 that maybe there was a little bit of shenanigans going on, but we don't know for sure.

00:29:27.700 If you'd like to make sure that those shenanigans, if they happen, but we can't be sure,

00:29:32.740 make no difference at all. You might want to pick that one up.

00:29:36.180 All right.

00:29:38.740 Ontario, the wait is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget Online

00:29:46.020 Casino is live, bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your

00:29:51.540 fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple.

00:29:56.980 And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top-tier

00:30:02.180 table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn

00:30:07.380 any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the

00:30:13.460 slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time

00:30:18.580 action, all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold

00:30:23.860 at Golden Nugget Online Casino? Gambling problem? Call Connex Ontario, 1-866-531-2600. 19 and over,

00:30:32.580 physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. See goldennuggetcasino.com

00:30:37.460 for details. Please play responsibly.

00:30:39.380 Joe Fried. I hope that's the way he pronounces it. It's spelled like fried. And the American

00:30:49.060 thinker is talking about Pennsylvania and the election. And lots of smart people say whoever

00:30:54.420 wins Pennsylvania is going to be the next president. So this was a big one. Here are a

00:30:58.420 few things you might not know about Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania does not require ID when voting by mail.

00:31:05.060 It does not require ID when voting by mail. But that's not a big problem, right? Because

00:31:12.740 you could always check the signatures. Oh, wait. In Pennsylvania, they don't check these signatures

00:31:20.100 on the mail-in votes. Oh. Well, okay. Huh.

00:31:27.140 Huh. So they don't have requirement for ID, and they don't have requirement for signature matching.

00:31:38.100 Hmm. Interesting.

00:31:43.220 Here's my prediction again.

00:31:47.300 I don't see that we have a system that can produce a winner.

00:31:50.580 Do you? All right. We did have a system that can produce a winner, but it was predicated on

00:32:02.340 the public thinking that the system was probably pretty solid. And if there were any problems,

00:32:11.300 we could kind of quickly notice them and correct them to the courts if we needed to.

00:32:16.580 That's what I thought. I thought the system was mostly solid. And if there was any problem, we'd

00:32:24.340 probably spot it, correct it eventually. Now, what do you think? Now that we've spent a few years

00:32:31.700 looking into, you know, what 2020 was and wasn't and learning about the different processes,

00:32:38.820 is it obvious to you that the system is designed for the purpose of hiding cheating, not for the

00:32:45.060 purpose of having a fair election? To me, it's really super screamingly obvious that it's designed

00:32:52.580 to hide who won, just in case you need to hide it.

00:32:59.460 This is the way you design it if you were trying to hide the result, not if you were trying to be

00:33:03.700 transparent and make it easily auditable. You wouldn't do it this way. And then you've heard

00:33:09.300 you've heard all the other state rules that clearly are designed to obscure the result. They're so

00:33:18.180 obviously, clearly, screamingly obviously designed to obscure who won. So do you think we're going to

00:33:25.940 have a result where America says, oh, that looks good to me? Yeah, a few little complaints. We'll

00:33:32.260 look into those. But basically, we'll just certify it. I don't think there's a chance.

00:33:38.740 Because it doesn't matter who won. If Trump won, the other side is going to say, Russia

00:33:45.460 gamed the system. If Trump doesn't win, half the country is going to say, well, you did it again.

00:33:54.100 And there's going to be all these stories about precincts that were irregular.

00:34:01.060 So I don't see any possibility with our current setup. Because you know, I always say design is

00:34:07.140 destiny. Our current design, if you add on top of it, the knowledge that now everybody knows all

00:34:14.180 the holes in the system, that wasn't the case in 2020. In 2020, our design held barely. Because

00:34:22.340 somebody did get certified. And somebody did serve on a term. Almost. Right? So I'd say that system

00:34:32.260 worked, but it was really close to not working. But now we've added the knowledge of all the ways that

00:34:38.420 they're obviously trying to hide the result, not reveal the result. Now nobody could trust it.

00:34:44.340 Because everything that the Republicans uncovered, you know, to further their own point of view,

00:34:51.380 is also known by Democrats now. Because the Democrats would also say, but wait a minute,

00:34:56.900 we just lost this election, and you just told us all the ways that elections can be cheated.

00:35:02.900 How do we know you didn't cheat? And the answer is, you don't. You wouldn't know either way.

00:35:09.940 So no, there isn't any chance we could get a result. And we're all we're all blindly just walking toward

00:35:15.700 it. Like that's okay. I think there's a lot of hope, the wishful thinking involved at this point.

00:35:23.380 There isn't really any chance of electing a president that the country agrees was legally elected.

00:35:30.980 That has been removed by the current design of the system. The system is designed to guarantee

00:35:38.900 we don't have a president after the election, at least not one that people agree on.

00:35:42.980 So I don't think that there's going to be a civil war. And the reason is, I'll tell you again. It's

00:35:51.780 funny that this isn't obvious to everybody. Who would you shoot? There's nobody to shoot.

00:35:59.220 Even if you thought there was one precinct that cheated, you wouldn't even really be able to find out

00:36:06.020 who did what, when. Every time you thought you could find somebody to be mad at, like a revolution,

00:36:15.780 we're going to bring some violence and fix everything. Violence against whom? Your neighbor?

00:36:22.740 Your neighbor's fine. They just voted for somebody else. You're not going to kill your neighbor for

00:36:26.900 voting differently than you voted. There's nobody to take it out on. The reason that January 6th was

00:36:33.860 such a weak and ineffective thing is that the best thing they could think of doing was trespassing.

00:36:41.060 If you steal this election again, we're going to trespass again. No, it's worse than that.

00:36:48.020 There might be graffiti involved. We're going to trespass and we're going to move a lectern.

00:36:54.580 We're going to move that lectern and we're going to graffiti. That'll teach you. We'll reverse

00:37:00.500 everything. No, there's nothing to do. There's no lever to pull. There's no button to push.

00:37:06.820 There's nobody to shoot. So when I say I recommend no violence, it's because there's no purpose.

00:37:14.660 We have to figure out some other way because there's nobody to shoot. And there won't be.

00:37:21.620 So leave your guns at home. There's nobody to shoot.

00:37:28.580 So here's a good example of how our two movies on one screen is working. So Kyle Griffin did a post

00:37:36.980 on X that people are reading completely opposite ways. So I'm just going to tell you what his post

00:37:43.780 was. And then I want to see if you do you say this is a pro-Trump post or is it an anti-Trump post?

00:37:53.060 That's the fun. I'll just read it the way it's written. Then you tell me is this pro-Trump or anti?

00:37:58.340 OK, and it's being interpreted both ways by conservatives. All right. So Kyle Griffin posts this.

00:38:05.060 It's just four sentences. Mike Pence isn't voting for Trump. Mitt Romney isn't voting for Trump.

00:38:12.180 Paul Ryan isn't voting for Trump. Dick Cheney isn't voting for Trump. All right. So those are four

00:38:20.980 prominent Republicans not voting for Trump. Is that pro-Trump or anti-Trump?

00:38:28.740 Well, if there's one thing I can teach you, it's that communication doesn't make any sense unless you

00:38:36.900 understand the communicator, the person who said it. If you don't know who said it,

00:38:43.300 then sometimes you can't tell what is sarcasm and what is honest. And if you didn't know that Kyle is

00:38:54.260 pro-Trump as far as everything I've ever seen from him, you might think that he's mocking Trump by

00:39:00.660 saying all these Republicans are against him. If you knew that he would have the opinion, I'm sure.

00:39:07.380 I mean, I'm not a I'm not a mind reader. So I guess I should couch this as my very strong opinion of what

00:39:14.900 Kyle was up to. I think he was showing that the the four least respected Republicans

00:39:22.660 from a MAGA perspective, they would be four of the least respected Republicans

00:39:27.140 are against them. And that's a positive thing. That you would be worried if these four were in

00:39:33.940 favor of Trump. That that would be a red flag for MAGA people. But people were not quite sure if this

00:39:42.820 was pro-Trump or anti-Trump. It is pro-Trump. I feel confident in that opinion.

00:39:49.140 George Bush, George W. Bush said he won't endorse a candidate in 2024. So he didn't go as far as

00:39:58.900 saying he's going to vote for he's going to vote for a Democrat. That was probably the right play. But 0.54

00:40:05.220 once again, all five of these Republicans appear to be the big war Republicans. If the big war Republicans

00:40:13.860 don't like Trump, I like Trump better. Vivek Ramaswamy was predicting that, quote,

00:40:22.420 very strange things will happen if if Trump has a good debate and Kamala Harris

00:40:29.460 melts down like some people think she might. And as he says, Vivek says they've already sued and

00:40:37.060 prosecuted him, tried to kick him off the ballot and swap down his opponent.

00:40:41.060 Now, Vivek is smart, so he doesn't say they tried to kill him. It's good to leave that one out,

00:40:49.140 because we don't have a connection, direct connection. But you know, I know all of you

00:40:53.460 are thinking it, aren't you? You're thinking, I don't think it's a total coincidence that a

00:40:58.420 bullet hit the president's ear, or future president, past president. And Vivek says all of it could be a

00:41:07.700 preview of what's to come. I 100% agree. I would imagine the Democrats have a plan A, B, C, and D.

00:41:17.620 If plan A, well, plan A was Biden, I guess, so that didn't work out. Plan B is Kamala Harris.

00:41:26.100 Plan B also includes, you know, trying every hoax and every technique, legal and otherwise,

00:41:33.140 to get rid of Trump. If none of those things work, what exactly is plan D? If A, B, and C didn't work

00:41:42.180 out at all, and we see that they seem to be in an existential crisis, as in they think that they'll

00:41:47.940 all go to jail or be killed or be out of work or something, if Trump comes into office, what would

00:41:54.020 they be willing to do, having done all of those things already, you know, the lawfare, etc.? I don't

00:42:00.660 know, but I'm totally on Vivek's point of view here, which is, if you think they don't have any plans,

00:42:10.660 I think you're totally wrong. I think that assassination plans are actually discussed.

00:42:18.260 Now, not necessarily at the top, you know, I'm not saying that Nancy Pelosi has ever had a,

00:42:23.780 you know, a quiet conversation about, you know, we could, we could maybe set up an assassination.

00:42:29.460 I don't think that's happened. Or at least I prefer to think that that's not likely. But you can't tell

00:42:37.220 me that there's nobody within the entire security state of the United States who hasn't had a serious

00:42:43.540 conversation about that. Nobody? I think somebody has. I don't know who. Again, not at the top,

00:42:51.860 probably. But I got to think that bad people talk about bad things. So it wouldn't surprise me.

00:42:58.900 So yes, buckle up. Whatever happens is going to be interesting.

00:43:03.380 Trust and safety is becoming a key driver of customer experience, influencing how users engage,

00:43:09.860 how safe they feel, and ultimately, how likely they are to return. Because I don't know about you,

00:43:15.460 but if I've had too many bad experiences on a platform, I'm definitely not rushing back for more.

00:43:21.060 This is the intersection we're here to explore today.

00:43:24.260 Tap to keep listening to how trust and safety redefined CX for brands like TikTok, Trustpilot,

00:43:29.540 and more. A conversation with InTouchCX.

00:43:32.740 Well, Trump put out his statement, which I could not be happier about, telling people that when he

00:43:39.940 wins, he's going to go hard on any cheaters in the election. And I would like to just read his

00:43:46.020 statement. All right. So Donald Trump says, cease and desist. I, together with many attorneys and legal

00:43:52.340 scholars, am watching the sanctity of the 2024 presidential election very closely, because I know

00:43:58.420 better than most the rampant cheating and skullduggery that has taken place in the 2020 election.

00:44:05.460 It was a disgrace to our nation. So he goes, therefore, the 2024 election, where votes have

00:44:11.300 just started to be cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny. And then he says, when I win,

00:44:18.340 in all caps, those people that cheated, in all caps, will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,

00:44:24.820 which will include long-term prison sentences, so that this depravity of justice does not happen again.

00:44:34.100 And more stuff about, beware that this legal exposure extends to lawyers, political operatives,

00:44:42.020 donors, illegal voters, and corrupt election officials. So he's making sure everybody knows

00:44:48.260 that if they break the law, the law is coming for them. And they'll be sought and caught and prosecuted

00:44:57.140 at levels unfortunately never seen before in our country. Now, some of you might remember that I

00:45:04.820 suggested it would be a real good idea for the Trump campaign to let the world know that if he gets elected,

00:45:12.500 the election cheaters are going to be in more danger than any election cheater has ever been in before.

00:45:22.420 Now, on top of that, I want to see the whistleblower rewards get punched a little harder,

00:45:30.660 so that Democrats at least have heard the story that they could be in a lot of trouble if they cheat.

00:45:36.340 Now, the funny part is that Gavin Newsom reposted this with trying to do the dictator thing. Oh,

00:45:45.620 this is what a dictator would say. You know, I think he said this shows that Trump plans to lose,

00:45:53.140 you know, then claim it was the cheating, I guess. But all Trump needs is for people to know that he said

00:46:00.660 this. So his win is every time it gets reposted. So if all the Democrats repost it, and say,

00:46:09.940 oh, this is a bad thing he's saying, then all the Democrats watch those posts, hear that they could

00:46:15.940 be in a lot of trouble if they cheat. So the more people complain about this, the better it is,

00:46:21.700 because more people will hear that there's an extra risk of cheating this time. And I'd like to see more

00:46:26.420 attention on the whistleblower awards, so that you know that not only will these prison sentences

00:46:32.740 be extreme, but somebody's going to get paid for turning you in.

00:46:39.700 All right. On top of that, Trump promised that once in office, he would do an executive order

00:46:48.740 to stop any federal employees from colluding to limit free speech. So this would be keeping

00:46:56.420 them from talking to the press or social media to try to change the reporting. And he would fire

00:47:03.460 anybody who was involved with it in the past who was part of the bureaucracy. I like that.

00:47:10.580 NBC News is reporting that people are starting to turn to Trump on the fentanyl question, 0.97

00:47:16.580 meaning they think Trump would be a little more of a hard ass on fentanyl.

00:47:21.060 And so people who have been around any fentanyl tragedies, as I have, this would be the 0.78

00:47:29.540 month that my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose in 2018.

00:47:38.100 So that's the thing, that even some Democrats are turning toward Trump because the fentanyl thing

00:47:44.340 goes right to the top of your list. If you lose somebody, if you lose somebody to a fentanyl

00:47:49.380 overdose, it will be your number one issue. And so it's the number one issue for an extra 70,000

00:47:58.420 families. So it's 70,000 times, maybe 10 people a piece are, you know, strongly affected by any one

00:48:07.700 death. More people are affected, but for any one death, there's 10 people who really have a bad time

00:48:13.540 with it, you know, on average. So you're talking about 700,000 people a year who have a direct,

00:48:21.780 emotional, hard, hard experience from somebody they know passing away. So that's potentially,

00:48:30.020 that's a lot of votes. And I don't, I don't know if that's being completely captured

00:48:35.060 in the polling. But my take is that it doesn't matter which candidate gets elected, because I

00:48:44.420 don't think, no, I don't think anybody's going to do anything on fentanyl. You know, maybe science will

00:48:49.780 find a way to make it less deadly. I've talked about a number of scientific things to like vaccinations

00:48:55.860 against it, etc. But you know, vaccinations would have its own risk. But I'm quite convinced that

00:49:07.220 some part of the American government has some kind of a deal with the cartels. So the cartels don't

00:49:13.060 need to change what they're doing, and we're not going to bomb them. So you can talk about it. But it

00:49:19.220 looks like maybe the CIA or somebody is going to stop it and say, you know, we kind of need the cartels

00:49:25.860 to control the governments in other countries. And that's more important than 70,000 people dying per

00:49:31.380 year, apparently. So I'm not saying it's more important. I'm saying that must be the argument,

00:49:38.100 that they need it more than they need to stop the fentanyl. And realistically, you could bomb everything

00:49:43.220 in the world and fentanyl would still get through. I mean, if you only need, you know, a bottle cap

00:49:49.220 the size of fentanyl to kill a city, nobody's going to stop that. It's just too small. You could put,

00:49:58.260 you know, even a tiny drone could carry enough fentanyl across the border.

00:50:05.620 There's just no way you can stop fentanyl. Now, I still prefer Trump on this issue,

00:50:11.060 because he's willing to kill people. And I think some people need to get killed. 1.00

00:50:17.220 Criminals, dealers. So on average, the bigger dealers, if you're a large dealer, 0.99

00:50:22.980 not just some street person, but if you're a large dealer of fentanyl, you've definitely killed people. 0.97

00:50:29.140 You are definitely a murderer. And if Trump and the Republicans can get through some,

00:50:35.540 we will kill you if you're in this business and we catch you, I'd be in favor of killing all of them. 1.00

00:50:40.980 Fentanyl. Now, is that my logical, well-reasoned opinion? Nope. That's my opinion of somebody who 1.00

00:50:49.300 lost the stepson to fentanyl. So I'm in favor, I'll even do it myself. If there's any way I could

00:50:57.540 volunteer to pull the lever to kill dealers who dealt fentanyl, I would volunteer in a heartbeat. 1.00

00:51:07.380 Just to watch the life drain out of their eyes, I would love to do it. I will kill all of them. In 1.00

00:51:12.980 fact, I'd never get tired of it. If you have a thousand people who need to be killed legally, 0.98

00:51:19.220 only legally, and somebody needs to push the button and look in their eyes as the life drains out of it, 0.66

00:51:24.820 I'll do that. I'll do that all day long. And I won't even require payment. I'll pull that lever

00:51:32.260 just as much as you want to watch them die. So I prefer Trump on that because I'd like to watch 0.53

00:51:37.860 some people die. It's not an opinion that I think you should have. I think you should live your life

00:51:43.620 without these thoughts in your head. But that's where I stand. All right.

00:51:51.860 Matt Walsh has that Am I a Racist movie. I think that's the title, right? The title is Am I a Racist?

00:51:57.780 I hope I got that right. I just saw a trailer for it. It looks good. It looks good. Matt Walsh,

00:52:04.740 even when I disagree with him, which happens now and then, he does good work. Can we all agree on

00:52:11.540 that? Can we agree? He does a good product. His monologues that he does are great. Even when I

00:52:18.660 disagree, I love listening to him. And the trailer for this looks interesting. So in it, he's having a

00:52:26.020 conversation with a woman who's complaining because her daughter always picks the white princesses in the

00:52:33.300 Disney movie. Now, the mother is white and the child is white, but she's trying to make sure her 0.98

00:52:39.060 child doesn't become a racist and just randomly prefer white people stuff. And then Matt Walsh is

00:52:46.500 talking to her and he's playing it straight. And he says that his daughter likes Princess Moana or Mona

00:52:55.300 from one of the movies I haven't watched in which I think there's a person of color Hawaiian, I guess,

00:53:01.220 maybe Hawaiian or some other island. And she's the star of that movie. And so Matt Walsh is saying,

00:53:08.100 but if my daughter picks this person of color and this other culture, and she wants to wear that

00:53:14.900 costume for Halloween, would that make her culturally appropriating the culture? And the racist woman is 1.00

00:53:25.860 like, hmm, yeah, good point. So if she only picks the white princesses, she is racist. But if she likes 1.00

00:53:34.020 the person of color so much that she would want to wear the same outfit, she would be appropriating 1.00

00:53:39.860 her culture. So really, there's two ways to be racist and no way to not be. That's not exactly true,

00:53:46.500 but it's funny. Here's an update on Brazil. Let's see. Brazil is trying to destroy an American company 0.79

00:53:55.620 and end free speech in the United States by taking out X. So naturally, as you'd expect,

00:54:03.140 the US ambassador to Brazil is very active and trying to... No, I'm just kidding. We haven't

00:54:10.580 heard from the ambassador to Brazil. Nope. Nope. Vacation this week? Maybe on vacation?

00:54:19.940 I don't see a lot coming out of there. Now, this is all from Mike Benz. Mike Benz is watching the

00:54:25.460 situation carefully. And he reminds us that every day we hear nothing from the United States

00:54:31.780 about Brazil banning X and going after Musk and after his assets every day is confirmation that

00:54:39.380 the United States is behind it. It sure looks like the United States is behind it.

00:54:46.100 Now, maybe the United States doesn't back every single thing that Brazil is doing,

00:54:51.380 but clearly they're not trying to stop it, which means that they're preferring

00:54:57.460 some benefit to Brazil over America. So definitely not America first, definitely not free speech.

00:55:05.380 So whoever is in charge of whatever is running this government are not in favor of protecting

00:55:11.780 America, not in favor of protecting American companies, and certainly not in favor of free

00:55:17.380 speech. And these things we can say for sure, because it wouldn't take much to put in a memo that says,

00:55:25.460 you know, you should stop fucking with American companies or some shit's coming your way. 0.99

00:55:30.740 That's just normal business. The most normal thing that the United States does is say, 1.00

00:55:37.460 you know, if you do it this way, we're going to be your friends. But if you do something this way,

00:55:42.740 suddenly it's going to be hard for you to find trading partners. It's the most basic thing we do. And

00:55:47.700 yet it's not being done. It's not being ignored. It's not being mentioned. It's not being anything.

00:55:52.900 So I would call this a confirmation that Brazil is working with the United States to destroy free 0.93

00:56:02.580 speech in the United States. I think you could just say it as a fact. You know, it feels like

00:56:09.060 speculation, but I don't know what the other explanation of our silence is. There's no other explanation.

00:56:15.540 Um, meanwhile, Michael Schellenberger has actually gone to Brazil to be part of, uh, you know, the

00:56:24.660 resistance against this move against X. Um, he does say that the odds of him being jailed

00:56:32.100 are unfortunately pretty high. Now he hasn't been jailed yet. And if he does, we're not going to be

00:56:39.460 happy Brazil. Uh, if you jail Michael Schellenberger, Brazil, you're going to have a fight on your hands.

00:56:48.340 I don't know what that fight is going to look like, but you'd better cancel all your other plans.

00:56:53.540 Cause we're coming for you. Yeah. If you just take one of our Americans and put them in jail, 0.98

00:56:58.260 especially a productive one, like Michael Schellenberger. No, we're not going to be happy

00:57:03.380 about that. Just want you to know. Now we might have to wait for Trump to be president.

00:57:09.140 So, you know, worst case scenario, Schellenberger stays in jail for months until there's somebody

00:57:14.580 who can do something about it, but there will be something about it. So I just want to make

00:57:20.580 sure Brazil knows clearly the repercussions of messing with our citizen down there are going

00:57:29.300 to be pretty extreme. It's going to be really expensive, whatever it is, whatever it is.

00:57:37.860 Anyway, um, you know, that story about, uh, Tenet, the company that, uh, allegedly took some

00:57:45.220 secret Russian money and was, uh, funding some, uh, conservative podcasters like Tim Poole and, uh,

00:57:53.060 Dave Rubin and a few others. And, uh, do you think that that's, um, yet another inside job?

00:58:04.180 Because remember the, the Russia collusion hoax was driven by Hillary Clinton. It didn't come from

00:58:10.740 Russia. The lap, the 51 Intel people who lied about Hunter's laptop came again from presumably the 0.82

00:58:20.260 Democrat sources. It didn't come from Russia. So now we've got this, you know, mysterious Russian 0.87

00:58:27.540 money went into Tenet. Do you think that it was really Russian money that went into it? Or do you

00:58:33.540 think it was CIA or some intelligence group that put money into it? Well, why would they do that?

00:58:41.300 Why would they do that? Well, for this, they would do that so that they could smear the,

00:58:48.260 some of the strongest conservative voices, you know, the ones with big platforms, they could say, 0.88

00:58:54.980 well, are you listening to those, uh, Russian stooges? So they create a situation that for a 0.99

00:59:01.140 mere $10 million, they can create this fake funding from a fake Russian. And it will look like the people 0.93

00:59:10.180 who were part of that platform must be a little bit influenced by Russia. Now there's no evidence

00:59:17.540 that any of them even were aware, much less have any kind of impact on their editorial decisions,

00:59:23.780 which were not. There's no evidence, no accusation that any of them did anything wrong. But does it

00:59:31.700 work as a dirty trick? Yeah, it does. Because there's one more story that Democrats will not look into

00:59:38.420 too deeply. And they'll say to themselves, well, there it is again. It's yet another example of

00:59:44.500 where Trump supporters are working with Russia. I guess, I guess Trump and Putin just want to have,

00:59:51.380 like, a love affair. So it's a little too close to exactly what happened two times before.

00:59:59.380 That right before an election, there, or around an election, there's this, uh, Russian interference story.

01:00:06.420 That's a little bit too on the nose. I wouldn't say that, uh, it was CIA funded, but if Russia funded it,

01:00:16.260 there was no obvious reason for it because Russia apparently didn't change any of the behavior of

01:00:23.860 the people who were hired. Although they think maybe that the owner of the company, Lauren Chen,

01:00:29.460 may have modified her opinions, but I'm not even sure that's proven.

01:00:32.580 Uh, that's an allegation. So it would make more sense if it were an inside job because then it

01:00:40.420 would make more sense that nobody tried to influence Tim Pool and Dave Rubin.

01:00:45.380 Searchlight Pictures presents The Roses, only in theaters August 29th. From the director of

01:00:51.940 Meet the Parents and the writer of Poor Things comes The Roses, starring Academy Award winner

01:00:57.220 Olivia Colman, Academy Award nominee Benedict Cumberbatch, Andy Samberg, Kate McKinnon,

01:01:02.500 and Allison Janney. A hilarious new comedy filled with drama, excitement, and a little bit of hatred, 0.81

01:01:08.260 proving that marriage isn't always a bed of roses. See The Roses, only in theaters August 29th.

01:01:14.500 Get tickets now.

01:01:16.980 Um, RFK Jr. did a Wall Street Journal article that'd be behind the paywall wall for most of you.

01:01:25.380 So you wouldn't see it, but it's quite detailed. And I wanted, I wanted to share it with you.

01:01:31.780 This might be a little nerdy for some of you, but I want to make the larger case

01:01:36.740 that the reason Kennedy is special, and also Elon Musk, they have this in common. They're systems

01:01:44.980 thinkers. In other words, Elon looks at every system as a machine. This is my interpretation of

01:01:51.540 what anybody with his mind would be doing. And so he can see all the components and you know,

01:01:58.180 knows which parts need to be tweaked to, to fix things. Uh, RFK Jr. is the same kind of mind.

01:02:04.740 So when he says we need to have better food or, uh, safer drugs,

01:02:12.980 he's not just saying I have a goal. He has a specific recommendations.

01:02:18.180 So I thought you should hear them.

01:02:25.300 Because I don't think they'll be covered too much. They're a little detailed.

01:02:30.100 But they all have the following, um, they all have the following quality.

01:02:33.620 Uh, they change the incentives. So our current systems have an incentive structure that just

01:02:40.980 guarantees bad behavior. And it wouldn't be hard to figure out where those incentives are and remove

01:02:47.940 them. So rather than just saying, oh, food should be healthy and, uh, drugs should be tested better.

01:02:56.420 And then nobody knows what to do. He gives very specific things

01:03:00.900 things to change the motivation of the people involved. And that, that should create the right

01:03:09.140 set of, uh, activities. So one is, uh, reform the prescription drug user free act. Um, so right now,

01:03:18.180 pharmaceutical companies pay, uh, for a new drug approval. Uh, every time they apply for new drug

01:03:25.140 people, um, about 75% of the budget goes to the FDA. So there's this gigantic expense to introduce

01:03:36.660 new drug. Most of it goes to the FDA, which makes a small drug firm, almost impossible to do any

01:03:43.700 business. So the first problem is that the, the big players have a big money advantage. So you take that

01:03:51.220 away. And now you have at least the possibility that you would have lower cost, better drug people

01:03:57.540 coming in who didn't have that much money to, to do this thing. That's a system. That's a change of

01:04:05.060 incentives. And that makes sense. Uh, he wants to prohibit members of the U S department of agricultural

01:04:12.180 dietary committee, advisory committee. God, these are long names. This is the United States

01:04:17.780 Department of Agriculture dietary guidelines, advisory committee, uh, wants them to not make

01:04:24.900 money from food or drug companies. Well, why would they make money from food and drug companies? Well,

01:04:30.820 it turns out that 95% of the panel had conflicts of interest. Oh my God. 95% of the panel had conflicts

01:04:41.060 of interest. In other words, they made money from people they were supposedly managing.

01:04:47.780 If you will, um, reviewing direct to consumer pharma ads in other countries, you can't advertise

01:04:56.180 direct to the consumer. And that's probably a good idea. That makes sense because then people get all

01:05:02.500 worked up on the drug commercials and go beat up their doctors to give them the drug. And that's not

01:05:06.820 the way you want to do medicine. You don't want the customer telling the doctor what to do.

01:05:12.260 Um, change federal regulations so that the, uh, NIH funds, uh, can't go to researchers with

01:05:22.020 conflicts of interest. Okay. So it's another conflict of interest thing. Uh, also make sure that we can

01:05:28.260 negotiate on drug costs. So today in Germany, Ozempic costs less than a 10th of what it does in the U S. Do you

01:05:35.940 know why? Why does Ozempic cost one 10th of what it costs the United States? Because Germany negotiated

01:05:44.100 the price. That's it. And we're not allowed to do that. It's a 10 to one advantage just because we

01:05:52.180 have the wrong law. We're not allowed to do it. So just change that. And then we can get lower costs.

01:05:58.980 Presumably the other countries would pay more because right now we're subsidizing other countries

01:06:04.740 massively by making sure the pharma companies can stay in business and then they can sell,

01:06:10.100 sell Germany. They're cheap Ozempic because it's just a little extra.

01:06:16.580 All right. That's good idea. Um, stop allowing the beneficiaries of the supplemental nutrition

01:06:22.980 assistant program to use their food stamps by soda or processed foods to which I say that

01:06:28.900 was ever allowed. The government is funding people to buy food and beverages that are literally

01:06:35.860 unhealthy. Yeah. How about if you're on some kind of government assistance, the only thing those

01:06:43.300 dollars can go to are things that are healthy food. Yeah, I'm down for that. And by the way,

01:06:50.180 it makes me want to go on food stamps or something because then I could get only healthy food.

01:06:54.580 It would force me to do it. Although I'm, I eat pretty healthy now. Uh,

01:06:58.660 apparently there are a whole bunch of, uh, pesticides that are legal in the United States,

01:07:03.300 but illegal in Europe. And, uh, uh, Kennedy thinks we should get closer to the European model there.

01:07:12.020 And, uh, uh, I guess a glyphosate isn't currently banned in the EU. Uh, but some of the

01:07:21.540 members don't use it, I guess. All right. So what do you think of those ideas in concept?

01:07:32.500 In concept, could you ever disagree with people not having a conflict of interest?

01:07:39.220 I feel like that's just sort of obvious, right? The, uh, don't advertise drugs to consumers who don't,

01:07:46.660 you know, don't know what they're getting. That feels okay. So some of these feel pretty good.

01:07:53.700 I don't know if they're a full solution, but everything he says has a, you know, a common sense element to it.

01:08:05.300 All right. I got a question for you. Uh, this is a thinker.

01:08:08.260 So you're going to immediately laugh because you think it's a joke, but then I'm going to say, but is it, is it a joke?

01:08:19.780 Tell me why it wouldn't work. All right. Here's the joke. If Democrats think that raising taxes on rich people is good,

01:08:27.300 why don't they just raise taxes on themselves? 0.99

01:08:29.940 Because if you can't get everybody to pay more taxes, can't you at least get the rich Democrats to pay more taxes?

01:08:38.420 They seem to like that idea.

01:08:40.980 So now you laugh and you say, ah, that's pretty funny, you know, but, but we're one country.

01:08:46.100 You know, you have to have one set of rules for everybody.

01:08:49.860 To which I say, no, you don't.

01:08:52.420 No, I don't, I don't believe there's anything that requires us to have the same set of rules for everybody.

01:08:59.620 Can everybody be drafted into the military?

01:09:03.380 No, you can't be a hundred years old and have no legs and be drafted into the military.

01:09:08.820 Can, uh, everybody go to grade school?

01:09:12.500 Well, not if you're an adult.

01:09:14.820 No, pretty much your entire world decides who can and who can't for everything.

01:09:20.900 Right. So, no, we can bifurcate, we can divide, we can treat people differently.

01:09:27.220 We only need a reason.

01:09:29.300 But what's the reason that the handicapped people have handicapped parking? 1.00

01:09:33.940 Well, there's a reason.

01:09:36.820 They have trouble getting around.

01:09:39.300 So, yes, you only need a reason.

01:09:41.620 But if you have a reason, the society is very open to treating people differently.

01:09:48.260 Here's my reason.

01:09:49.060 If Democrats think it's a better world when rich people pay taxes,

01:09:54.900 it's at least half as good or half as much better if at least the Democrats pay more taxes.

01:10:02.420 Now, you might say to me, but Scott, that's not going to be fair

01:10:06.100 because those taxes will go to benefit Republicans as well as Democrats.

01:10:11.060 To which I say, not necessarily.

01:10:13.380 Why couldn't you, for example, say we'll increase taxes on rich Democrats, but that money will only go to reparations?

01:10:25.860 Who loses?

01:10:27.300 Who's the loser in that? 0.99

01:10:28.660 There's no loser.

01:10:30.180 Democrats think that reparations make sense and that rich people have enough money to pay it.

01:10:35.220 The people who want the reparations think that they should get them.

01:10:41.060 So then you would pair the people who want to pay it with the people who want to be paid it.

01:10:48.020 Now, you might say to me, but Scott, what about the problem of not all white people got some benefit from slavery?

01:10:56.740 To which I say, that's not a problem now because all the Democrats don't care about that.

01:11:01.380 You know, they just see that there's a difference in equity and outcome and they want to balance it.

01:11:07.860 But, but, but what about, no, there's no what abouts.

01:11:11.380 Once you've paired the ones who want to pay with the ones who want to get paid, it's just a question of the number.

01:11:18.340 You just work out the number.

01:11:20.580 Now, tell me that's a bad idea.

01:11:24.180 It's not a bad idea.

01:11:25.220 Why is it that California can potentially consider reparations that would just be in California?

01:11:34.420 That's the, that's sort of somewhat arbitrarily saying, we're going to look at this group of people and tax them more than the people in the state next to us.

01:11:43.940 We accept this all the time.

01:11:46.260 This is completely acceptable, normal, reproducible behavior that we treat groups differently.

01:11:51.960 So let's treat the Democrats who want higher taxes on the rich, give them exactly what they want, higher taxes on their own rich.

01:12:01.640 And then nobody else has to pay reparations either.

01:12:04.960 It just comes out of the higher taxes on the Democrats.

01:12:07.720 Who loses?

01:12:10.440 Nobody loses.

01:12:12.320 I literally described everybody getting what they want.

01:12:15.060 Now, if you're not sold yet, I'll get, let me give you a, um, sort of a mental, let's see, a mental experiment.

01:12:26.680 Let's say that tomorrow, uh, Putin said, if you're a Trump supporter, you can move to Russia and we'll give you all $10 million.

01:12:36.420 And we all believe that.

01:12:38.520 So all the conservatives just pack up and legally, legally, they just move right to Russia.

01:12:45.080 So now the United States is nothing but Democrats who want reparations and want to have higher taxes to pay them.

01:12:52.620 So they immediately change the law and then it's only Democrats left and they pay higher taxes and they pay reparations.

01:12:59.840 Who loses?

01:13:00.560 Because there's no loser, right?

01:13:05.100 The people who wanted to pay, paid.

01:13:07.280 The people who wanted to get paid, got paid.

01:13:09.740 So if it works, if you take all the Republicans out of the country, why wouldn't it work if you just ignored them all?

01:13:18.000 Just pretend they're not here.

01:13:19.940 Because every Republican would be okay with being ignored on that topic.

01:13:25.160 Well, let me get this straight.

01:13:26.460 You're going to ignore me in terms of taxes, so I don't need to pay more taxes, but you're also going to ignore me about who's getting the benefit of those taxes that I'm not paying anyway.

01:13:38.960 Exactly.

01:13:40.180 Oh, okay.

01:13:41.020 Go ahead.

01:13:42.500 No problem at all.

01:13:44.860 All right.

01:13:45.940 So there might be other things like somebody said abortion.

01:13:50.280 I want to test this out on you.

01:13:51.960 This one's a real test to see if you have honest opinions that make sense or if you just have brainwashed-based opinions.

01:14:01.780 You ready for this?

01:14:04.240 Suppose the country agreed that Democrats could have abortions on demand with no restrictions, but Republicans could not.

01:14:16.100 What's wrong with that? 0.74

01:14:17.240 Then Democrats get what they want, which is to kill their own babies, and Republicans get what they want, which is in the Republican world, it's illegal, so it doesn't happen, and there are fewer Democrats because the Democrats are killing their own potential offspring. 0.51

01:14:36.780 Now, see, this is why this is a good test for your own thinking. 0.84

01:14:45.880 If you said to yourself, I'm fine with Democrats killing their own babies, then I submit to you that you don't care about abortion.

01:14:56.300 I submit to you that if you can hold that opinion, that it'd be okay for the people you don't like to kill their babies, as long as people who are like you are not doing it, then you don't have a problem with abortion.

01:15:13.060 If you're going to be honest, that's not a problem with abortion, because you would be opposed to it no matter who did it where, if you were opposed to abortion.

01:15:24.740 But as soon as I said, well, let the Democrats kill their own babies, as long as people like you are okay and don't have that option, the moment you say that's okay, you're revealing yourself that it's not really about abortion.

01:15:39.560 You're just on a team. 0.98

01:15:41.060 You're just fighting for your team.

01:15:44.580 All right, so that's all I've got on that.

01:15:46.740 That's more of a thinker.

01:15:47.740 It's not a serious suggestion.

01:15:49.760 I think it's time to let everybody go back and enjoy their Sunday.

01:15:53.400 I'm going to say a few words to the fine subscribers on Locals.

01:16:00.200 For the rest of you, I think you know that if you went to Dilbert.com, you could pre-order the Dilbert calendar for 2025, made in America for the first time.

01:16:10.100 And get more than one, and the shipping costs will be far more reasonable then.

01:16:15.180 And I would also recommend, if you're subscribing to the Dilbert comic that's available on X by subscription, see my profile for the link, for the subscription link, and also on Locals, that today's Sunday Dilbert Reborn comic is one of the funniest I've ever read.

01:16:36.160 In my opinion, in my opinion, I looked at it again this morning to look at the final art, and I laughed out loud at my own comic.

01:16:45.640 Now, I don't often laugh out loud, like a full hearty laugh, but I did today, so I hope you enjoy it.

01:16:54.180 And Locals, coming at you. 1.00

01:16:56.320 Rumble and YouTube and X, thanks for joining, and you'll be cut off in about 30 seconds.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - September 08, 2024

Episode 2591 CWSA 09⧸08⧸24

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript