Real Coffee with Scott Adams - May 03, 2020


Episode 952 Scott Adams： Talking About Fake Kim Jong-Un, Treason, Waco and Coronavirus


Episode Stats

Length

51 minutes

Words per Minute

152.00026

Word Count

7,789

Sentence Count

523

Misogynist Sentences

8

Hate Speech Sentences

6


Summary

Dr. Scott Adams joins me to talk about the coronavirus pandemic, the hydroxychloroquine trial, and the new drug, remdesivir, and why it might not be as good as it looks.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum,
00:00:07.000 Daily Press Conference One joined.
00:00:10.360 Hmm, that's a funny name.
00:00:12.540 Good to see all of you.
00:00:13.620 Come on in.
00:00:14.320 Come on in.
00:00:15.220 You know what time it is.
00:00:17.160 If you're watching the clock, you are ready with your finger poised, ready to join Coffee
00:00:24.060 with Scott Adams.
00:00:25.520 Those are the people we like, the prepared people, people who know what time it is.
00:00:29.700 So to speak, literally and figuratively.
00:00:33.280 Somebody says, there's video, Scott.
00:00:35.520 Oh, we'll talk about that, won't we?
00:00:37.980 Yes, we will.
00:00:39.940 But before that, we will prepare for the greatest day since yesterday.
00:00:45.980 And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug
00:00:49.820 or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
00:00:52.400 Fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:54.740 I like coffee.
00:00:55.480 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that
00:01:00.540 makes everything better, including the damn pandemic.
00:01:03.860 It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
00:01:07.140 Go.
00:01:11.380 Mmm.
00:01:11.860 Yep, I can feel that R dipping below one.
00:01:20.120 Yeah, that's coronavirus talk.
00:01:22.960 Yeah, there was a time when I would not say things like, well, I hope we can get the R less
00:01:28.400 than one.
00:01:28.880 So, here's a list of things we still don't know, amazingly.
00:01:35.660 We don't know if ventilators make things better or worse.
00:01:40.680 What?
00:01:42.560 Seriously?
00:01:44.080 We don't know that now?
00:01:47.380 Are you kidding me?
00:01:49.340 We don't know if ventilators make it better or worse now?
00:01:53.480 Well, I mean, I can get why we didn't know in the beginning, but now we still don't know
00:01:59.100 if ventilators make it better or worse.
00:02:02.800 We don't know if hydroxychloroquine works still.
00:02:07.020 Are you kidding me?
00:02:08.340 I mean, a lot of you have an opinion, but we don't have good visibility on that yet, given
00:02:16.220 that it only takes the entire course of having the virus is like a, you know, a 10-day, two-week
00:02:22.780 thing.
00:02:23.720 How many 10-day, two-week periods have passed since we first said, hey, how about this hydroxychloroquine?
00:02:30.920 And we still don't know?
00:02:32.720 Are you kidding me?
00:02:34.660 What's wrong?
00:02:35.960 How about remdesivir?
00:02:37.480 We think that's pretty good, right?
00:02:38.900 Because you saw the news come out that remdesivir looks like it's really successful.
00:02:44.020 Did you know that at the same time they're saying remdesivir is very successful, that
00:02:50.820 they say, but they kind of mutter this, it trails off?
00:02:54.980 Listen to the second part.
00:02:56.700 I'll mutter it, so maybe it won't be that clear, so you have to listen carefully.
00:03:01.520 Remdesivir had a very successful trial.
00:03:05.240 We have very high hopes for it.
00:03:07.260 It's working very well, except that it doesn't seem to change the death rate whatsoever.
00:03:13.200 But the trial went very well.
00:03:16.200 We could see that the levels of virus were decreasing.
00:03:19.680 But for some reason, the same amount of people die no matter what, whether they're on the drug
00:03:24.520 or not.
00:03:25.140 However, the drug is very, very promising.
00:03:28.560 What?
00:03:29.880 Are you kidding me?
00:03:31.120 We don't know if remdesivir has any impact on the death rate because we haven't seen it,
00:03:37.840 meaning we haven't seen it make any difference.
00:03:40.980 Now, if it doesn't change the death rate, what's it doing?
00:03:47.480 What's it doing?
00:03:48.860 Now, I get that they can measure that people are cleared of the virus faster,
00:03:53.740 but if they die at the same rate, that's sort of the whole game, isn't it?
00:04:00.880 Did we go through this whole thing so we can get people coughing fewer than four days?
00:04:07.580 You know, four days fewer than it would have been otherwise?
00:04:09.660 Is that why we did all this?
00:04:11.180 So I would say remdesivir has a lot of questions.
00:04:13.620 How about vaccinations?
00:04:15.160 I see a story today that maybe we'll never have one.
00:04:18.300 because there's a really good chance we will never have a vaccination
00:04:22.560 because this virus is similar to ones that we still don't have a vaccination for.
00:04:29.180 It wouldn't be the first time we couldn't find a vaccination at all.
00:04:35.020 Now, I feel optimistic that we will, but we don't know that.
00:04:39.480 We also don't know why viruses ever peter out.
00:04:43.320 We don't know why.
00:04:44.700 It's not because of herd instinct, apparently.
00:04:47.180 Not herd instinct.
00:04:48.020 It's not because of herd immunity.
00:04:50.380 It's not because of vaccinations.
00:04:52.740 The head virologist in France, the top guy, said,
00:04:56.140 you know, we don't even know why they ever stop.
00:04:58.560 They just do.
00:04:59.980 I mean, you can say to yourself,
00:05:01.140 well, it's obviously because of VEX.
00:05:04.540 But is it?
00:05:06.040 Is it?
00:05:06.800 We don't know.
00:05:08.140 The experts don't know.
00:05:09.840 So those are all the things we don't know about this coronavirus situation.
00:05:15.280 But I wanted to do a little math for you,
00:05:17.240 and this will be a little math that you can do at home.
00:05:20.400 I'm going to give you some raw numbers.
00:05:22.820 I want you to check my math.
00:05:25.300 Now, there should be time that you can just quickly calculate this,
00:05:28.740 and some of you will do it in the comments so we can see.
00:05:32.140 And here's the calculation.
00:05:34.580 What if the rest of the country, the United States,
00:05:39.040 had the same experience in terms of death rate as New York City?
00:05:43.740 What would the death rate be in the whole country
00:05:46.440 if it turned out in the long run to be similar to what New York City is experiencing just so far,
00:05:53.200 not even counting future deaths in New York City?
00:05:56.300 Just what they've had so far.
00:05:58.440 Here are the numbers that you can calculate that from.
00:06:03.000 And check to make sure that the raw numbers are right, too.
00:06:06.460 I think they're pretty close.
00:06:07.500 So this might be a few days old,
00:06:11.160 but the number of dead in New York City that was above the baseline expected dead.
00:06:18.060 So listen to how I'm calculating this.
00:06:20.940 I'm not saying this is the number of coronavirus deaths.
00:06:24.280 I'm saying this is the number of deaths above the baseline for a normal year in New York City.
00:06:32.180 And they said it was 21,000 more deaths in New York City.
00:06:36.120 So the implication is that that's mostly coronavirus or all of it,
00:06:40.640 but that doesn't matter.
00:06:42.260 That's just the death rate.
00:06:43.780 So the death rate was 21,000 more than normal.
00:06:47.860 Population in New York City, 8.6 million.
00:06:50.240 So take your 21,000 dead divided by 8.6 million and tell me if you get 0.0024.
00:07:01.060 So that would be the ratio of people who died in New York City above and beyond what they expected in a normal year.
00:07:09.720 Then take the population of the United States, 327 million,
00:07:15.080 subtract out the 8.6 million because you've already dealt with them separately,
00:07:20.240 so what's left is I think you've got about 318 million people that are not New York City.
00:07:28.060 Now, if the 318 million who are not New York City have the same death rate as the ones that are New York City,
00:07:35.620 how many people would die in the United States?
00:07:37.880 Can somebody give me that number?
00:07:43.700 Because I don't believe I calculated it right because it would be 764,000 people dead.
00:07:51.200 So somebody's calculating, I don't know what that number, 776,000 dead.
00:08:01.760 Yeah, so in that range.
00:08:03.120 So over 700,000 dead if the rest of the United States went the way that New York City is going.
00:08:10.640 But would it, I mean, is there any reason to think?
00:08:13.680 Because New York City is very special, right?
00:08:15.600 It's special in the sense that there's so much that's different about it.
00:08:20.080 You've got more people coming in from different places.
00:08:23.100 You've got more elevators.
00:08:24.760 You've got your subways.
00:08:26.440 It's a different demographic.
00:08:28.160 I don't know if people smoke more or what.
00:08:31.060 Probably less in New York City.
00:08:32.660 I don't know what the ratio is.
00:08:34.920 But here's the question.
00:08:38.000 Are those differences in New York City the kind of differences that you would say, oh, don't worry about the rest of the country because they're not like New York City?
00:08:49.660 Is that statement, do you find that statement to be reasonable?
00:08:54.860 I'll say it again.
00:08:55.900 Just check your thinking here.
00:08:58.660 Is this a reasonable statement?
00:09:00.580 The rest of the United States will not go the way New York City went, even if you didn't mitigate.
00:09:06.920 So let's make it a hypothetical.
00:09:09.700 Let's say nobody mitigated.
00:09:11.900 Would the rest of the country look like New York City, even when New York City is mitigating?
00:09:17.640 So the best comparison is you're taking the smallest risk, which is that New York City with full mitigation and the rest of the country without it, could you get to some horrible situation?
00:09:35.760 The answer is yes.
00:09:37.360 But you say to yourself, but the rest of the country is not New York City, so that doesn't matter, right?
00:09:43.440 But explain to me what would keep the rest of the country from having the same experience, but slower.
00:09:52.540 Just slower.
00:09:53.380 Because the whole point of the coronavirus and flattening the curve is that New York City, it's hard to slow it because of the density, so people are just giving to each other too quickly.
00:10:05.380 But in the rest of the country, you could slow it down, right?
00:10:08.300 So that's different.
00:10:09.620 Totally different.
00:10:10.760 You can slow it down in the rest of the country, but not in New York City.
00:10:13.580 It's harder to slow it down.
00:10:14.680 Is that a difference?
00:10:18.300 Because the number of people who get it, the ratio of people who get it in the rest of the country, should be the same in the long run.
00:10:27.080 It will just take longer to get there.
00:10:29.180 Am I right?
00:10:29.660 So fact check this, that the rest of the country would, in fact, there's no reason, we have no reason to suspect, you know, you don't know what's going to happen, but you have no reason to suspect that the rest of the country would not eventually come up to New York City levels if you let it.
00:10:48.880 In other words, if you said, all right, the rest of the country looks pretty good, let's take off the controls.
00:10:54.840 Would the rest of the country reach the same ratio as New York City?
00:10:58.140 It would, right?
00:10:58.900 What would stop it?
00:11:00.620 I can't think of anything that would stop it.
00:11:04.540 Somebody is suggesting summer.
00:11:07.240 One of the other unknowns we have is whether this virus stops in the summer.
00:11:13.040 We assume so, but we actually don't know that.
00:11:16.740 Apparently that's not a given.
00:11:19.300 Can you hold out until a vaccine?
00:11:21.180 Well, I saw an article today that we might never have one.
00:11:24.520 Bill Gates thinks it could take two years, which would be too long to be in lockdown.
00:11:30.200 So, the people who said this is just the flu have to explain this math.
00:11:38.640 They have to explain to me why the rest of the country would have a different experience over time, not as quickly.
00:11:45.320 We all agree that it wouldn't happen as quickly, but over time, wouldn't you reach the same number of deaths as a ratio as you did in New York City?
00:11:53.860 And let me ask you this.
00:11:56.480 Do you think the people in New York City are more or less healthy than the people in the middle of the country?
00:12:03.520 Have you seen the middle of the country?
00:12:06.260 Have you seen Iowa?
00:12:07.920 Have you ever traveled in this country through the middle?
00:12:10.900 We are an overweight country.
00:12:13.480 But New York City, not so much.
00:12:17.240 New York City is one of your thinner cities.
00:12:19.580 It's fact-checked me on this.
00:12:21.940 So, I do a lot of traveling, or used to.
00:12:24.140 Back in the days when people traveled, I did a lot.
00:12:26.900 And if you would go to L.A., everybody's thin.
00:12:30.000 You go to San Francisco, people are pretty thin.
00:12:32.420 You go to New York City, people are pretty thin.
00:12:35.380 You go to Texas, not so thin.
00:12:38.860 You go to the middle of the country, anywhere, and there's some big people there.
00:12:42.840 How are they going to do when the coronavirus sweeps through the grossly overweight population?
00:12:50.820 Probably not as well as New York City.
00:12:53.740 Probably not as well.
00:12:55.840 So, we'll see.
00:12:59.900 So, believe it or not, even at this late date, we do not have general agreement in this country,
00:13:05.980 not even close to agreement, whether the coronavirus is worse than the regular flu.
00:13:11.760 Right?
00:13:13.920 Now, things got really quiet in the comments when I asked you to come up, you know, to
00:13:19.900 sort of do the math.
00:13:21.480 If the rest of the country went like New York City, and I think you'd agree we see no reason
00:13:26.540 it wouldn't happen, there's nothing to stop it, we should have three-quarters of a million
00:13:32.060 people die in the next year or so that didn't need to die.
00:13:37.220 Now, is that the regular flu, three-quarters of a million?
00:13:40.240 And are the people who are not afraid of that, three-quarters of a million people dying,
00:13:47.160 is it because they can't tell the difference between a country that's in lockdown and doing
00:13:53.780 social distancing and one that isn't?
00:13:56.240 Because I think that the people who are still in favor of, the people who still want to open
00:14:05.500 up the country as quickly as possible, and I'm in the camp that says we should open up
00:14:09.960 sooner than later.
00:14:11.140 So, I'm not arguing against it.
00:14:12.940 I'm just thinking it through.
00:14:14.860 The people who want to open it up, when I see them arguing in public, they act as though
00:14:21.000 they can't tell the difference between a fully mitigated situation that we're in now and one
00:14:27.660 that's fully unmitigated.
00:14:29.000 It's like they act like those are the same, right?
00:14:33.720 Correct me if I'm wrong.
00:14:35.020 Don't all the people who say, so I would put, let's say, Candace Owens in this category.
00:14:41.500 And I don't want to, let me speak more generally because I don't want to put, I don't want to
00:14:47.640 assume that I know the internal thoughts of someone else.
00:14:50.480 So, I'll talk generally just, but Candace would represent the people who are more aggressive
00:14:56.540 about getting back to work soon.
00:14:59.020 Now, again, I'm pretty close to that point of view myself.
00:15:03.060 The difference is that unlike some of the people who say we should get back to work, I can tell
00:15:09.120 the difference between mitigated and unmitigated.
00:15:12.320 And I look at them as separate.
00:15:14.320 So, when I say, let's get back to work, I do say it's going to cost us a few hundred
00:15:19.960 thousand people and we still should do it.
00:15:23.600 That's my opinion.
00:15:25.040 But if you're arguing we should get back to work and it won't cost us a few hundred thousand
00:15:29.440 people, what numbers are you looking at?
00:15:32.560 Because the numbers I'm looking at, as soon as we take the mitigation off, they should
00:15:36.860 get there.
00:15:37.860 Now, it could be the experts are wrong.
00:15:40.480 Have the experts ever been wrong?
00:15:42.040 Well, yeah, a lot.
00:15:45.120 So, it could be that Candace and folks who have that point of view turn out to be the
00:15:51.280 ones who are right.
00:15:53.040 You know, can I rule that out?
00:15:54.480 Nope.
00:15:55.520 I cannot rule that out.
00:15:56.900 I can't rule out at this point.
00:15:59.120 I can't rule out that a year from now we'll be saying, Scott, you freaking idiot.
00:16:03.880 You told us that this was dangerous.
00:16:06.080 We took all the mitigation off and nobody extra died.
00:16:09.920 Maybe.
00:16:10.300 I mean, maybe this summer will be enough to take the edge off it.
00:16:14.700 We get some therapeutics.
00:16:16.640 We figure out, stop using ventilators.
00:16:19.420 Just, you know, brainstorming here.
00:16:21.680 Maybe.
00:16:22.360 Maybe the death rate plunges in the next few months no matter what we do.
00:16:25.700 It's possible.
00:16:26.180 So, I guess there's some controversy about whether Candace Owens got banned temporarily from Twitter.
00:16:36.640 I'm just watching the conversation online and people seem to think her account still exists, so therefore she was not banned.
00:16:45.900 But other people say, no, it looks like that.
00:16:48.500 It's just that she can't tweet.
00:16:49.900 So, it looks like it's live to us, but if she tried to tweet, she wouldn't be able to, allegedly.
00:16:55.520 So, I don't know the details.
00:16:56.640 So, I don't know what's banned and what isn't.
00:16:58.580 That's just the controversy that's going around.
00:17:00.460 And I guess the sub-part of that controversy is that the only thing anybody can think of as to why she would be banned from Twitter
00:17:10.980 is that Twitter thinks she's spreading misinformation or bad information about the coronavirus.
00:17:18.980 Now, I also think that Candace spreads dangerous and bad information about the coronavirus.
00:17:27.040 But, am I an expert?
00:17:29.360 No.
00:17:30.940 Is my opinion about what is dangerous to spread about the coronavirus, should you take that seriously?
00:17:38.500 No.
00:17:40.360 No.
00:17:41.480 I'll tell you what my opinion is worth taking seriously, and this isn't one of them.
00:17:45.820 Because there's nobody who knows.
00:17:47.500 There's nobody who's smart enough.
00:17:49.480 There's no expert.
00:17:50.480 There's no mathematician.
00:17:51.660 There's no statistician who can tell you when's the right time to go back to work.
00:17:56.800 If it were easy, we wouldn't be arguing about it.
00:18:00.060 It's just unknowable.
00:18:01.740 So, we all end up using sort of our biases, our gut instinct, our guessing.
00:18:09.080 So, I'll make a guess because we have to make a decision, right?
00:18:13.040 We don't have the option of not making decisions.
00:18:15.720 Even not making a decision is a decision of not going back to work.
00:18:20.620 So, you've got to make a decision.
00:18:22.760 But I think you need to have some humility about how comfortable you could be knowing you're right.
00:18:29.040 I would say, I'm not comfortable.
00:18:31.960 I'll give you my opinion, but don't ask me to be confident about it.
00:18:35.880 That would be crazy.
00:18:37.300 And anybody who acts confident about their opinion, either going back to work or staying locked up longer, if they're acting confident, you should immediately ignore them.
00:18:48.580 Like, the moment you see strong confidence, you should run the other direction.
00:18:54.620 Now, that's partly one of my issues with Candace's opinion on this.
00:19:00.080 It's not even the details of the opinion, which I end up being very close to.
00:19:05.360 In other words, my opinion isn't very far from Candace's.
00:19:08.440 I don't even know if there is any difference, actually.
00:19:10.400 But the difference is, at least she presents herself publicly as being very certain that that's the right answer.
00:19:21.080 I can't get close to that level of certainty, even though I'm leaning in the same direction.
00:19:26.460 Now, I'm not sure that it's bad to act certain when you're not.
00:19:31.100 I don't know if that's the wrong thing in this situation, because certainty is part of what influences other people.
00:19:39.000 And even I'm watching the show as a spectator, and I say, you know, if I could, if I could influence people to maybe agree with my best guess, maybe I'd do that.
00:19:51.240 I just don't know if I want to.
00:19:53.700 Candace might want to influence people.
00:19:55.820 And when you're influencing, sometimes you do take on more certainty than you actually feel internally.
00:20:03.320 So, again, this is speculation, because I can't tell you what Candace or anybody else in the world is thinking.
00:20:09.440 I can't know that.
00:20:11.000 I can only know what they're doing, and then I try to put my interpretation on it.
00:20:14.400 But it's my interpretation.
00:20:15.860 I don't know what's in their head.
00:20:17.720 So my interpretation is that Candace is one of the best persuaders in the game.
00:20:24.680 And if she is taking on more confidence in the way she persuades than she might internally feel, I would say that's okay.
00:20:35.500 I would say that's okay, because that's what persuasion is.
00:20:39.740 But I'd be a little wary of anybody you think actually believes their own confidence.
00:20:44.900 So I ended up unfollowing Candace, because I couldn't stand what I thought was bad information.
00:20:58.440 So I had the same opinion that I think Twitter had, because we don't know why she was banned.
00:21:04.820 But the only thing anybody can think of is that Twitter thought that her recommendations were counter to the experts, I believe.
00:21:15.340 Specifically, I think the one that got her allegedly, and I don't know what the word is.
00:21:20.360 It's not banned.
00:21:21.880 But, like, what happens?
00:21:23.280 Suspended?
00:21:23.880 Get a timeout?
00:21:24.740 Whatever the word is.
00:21:25.420 I think what it was is that she was seemingly suggesting not paying attention to the government guidelines.
00:21:34.960 So it could be that Twitter just said, oh, it's just too dangerous to have people suggest that we should ignore government health and safety guidelines.
00:21:43.700 But, here's where the real issue is.
00:21:49.100 If that's your standard for suspending someone on Twitter, how do you not apply that to the Surgeon General of the United States?
00:22:00.320 How do you not apply it to every politician who is misspoken, of which there have been many?
00:22:06.500 When I say misspoken, I'm being generous.
00:22:09.320 Because politicians have flat out given you wrong, dangerous information.
00:22:13.020 Lots of them, on both sides, including the president, probably.
00:22:17.460 I can't think of an example, but one assumes that every politician has given you bad information at least once.
00:22:24.520 The Surgeon General told you not to wear a mask.
00:22:27.440 The World Health Organization had more misinformation than information.
00:22:31.880 Why are they not banned?
00:22:33.460 Who gets to decide?
00:22:35.260 Is the Surgeon General okay because at least he was trying?
00:22:38.900 Well, at least he was trying.
00:22:40.060 Sure, he got it wrong, but at least he's a medical professional.
00:22:43.820 At least he was trying.
00:22:45.360 Well, Candace doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.
00:22:48.680 What if she gets run wrong?
00:22:50.400 What if she uses her just good judgment, looks at a situation, and it's not so much a medical one as it is, you know,
00:22:58.800 a risk management situation of do you want to risk this to get back to work?
00:23:03.060 Do you believe the statistics?
00:23:04.240 What if Candace makes a good, let's say, a good intentioned opinion, and what if it's wrong?
00:23:14.860 Wrong in the sense that after everything is said and done, you can look back and say, oh, that was the wrong decision in hindsight.
00:23:21.620 So in hindsight, what if it was wrong?
00:23:25.340 Can you suspend somebody for being wrong with good intentions?
00:23:30.360 If you have good intentions, you show your work, and I believe Candace shows her work, right?
00:23:37.600 She has tweeted, you know, all kinds of data sources, links, analyses, opinions that support her point of view.
00:23:48.040 She didn't guess, right?
00:23:50.160 She might be right or she might be wrong, but she's not guessing.
00:23:53.680 She's looked at all the data.
00:23:56.120 I suppose we're all guessing in the end because we don't know the answer.
00:23:59.180 By the way, so I completely support Candace's free speech.
00:24:03.700 I'm pretty close to her opinion.
00:24:07.060 I don't like one bit the way she's expressing it in this case because I think her level of confidence is misleading, but that's a personal decision.
00:24:17.080 She can make that decision.
00:24:18.300 It's not up to me to judge.
00:24:20.020 So I don't judge her and don't much disagree with the ultimate direction that she's promoting.
00:24:30.540 That was too much on that.
00:24:32.040 All right.
00:24:33.700 Now, I know you want me to talk about Kim Jong-un and his photo.
00:24:37.400 So there was the photo and then there's a video.
00:24:40.760 So the photo showed Kim Jong-un cutting the ribbon, and I called BS on that photo.
00:24:49.720 Now, somebody said, Scott, Scott, Scott.
00:24:53.000 Joke's on you because there's a video, too.
00:24:56.180 There's a video.
00:24:57.700 So the video isn't a lie, is it?
00:24:59.640 Let me just say it again, and then maybe you can figure out where my head's at.
00:25:12.140 Scott, Scott, Scott, don't you know it must be true because it's on video?
00:25:17.240 Do I need to go on?
00:25:21.300 It's 2020.
00:25:22.660 Anybody who says to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, it must be true, look at the video.
00:25:29.620 Where have you been for the last five years?
00:25:34.600 Four years is really, really crunch time.
00:25:37.300 Last four years.
00:25:38.280 If you haven't noticed in the last four years that video can lie, where have you been?
00:25:45.120 The entire fine people hoax is based on a selectively edited video.
00:25:51.140 The entire the president wants you to drink Clorox hoax is based on selective video where
00:25:59.900 you just don't show the whole context.
00:26:02.320 Video is the most misleading thing in the world.
00:26:05.700 What about the Covington kids?
00:26:07.640 Do you know why I thought that the Covington kids were actually to blame for about 24 hours
00:26:12.820 until I saw the video from the other angle?
00:26:15.760 It's because video lies.
00:26:18.060 Video is a big old liar.
00:26:20.440 It's a lying liar.
00:26:22.220 Did you all see the deep fakes of, you know, you can see Trump giving an Obama speech or
00:26:28.460 Obama giving a Trump speech in their own words.
00:26:31.120 It's crazy.
00:26:32.240 Now, I don't think that the videos were deep fakes, but if you're saying he must be alive
00:26:38.920 because there's a video, just listen to yourself.
00:26:42.820 So try saying that out loud.
00:26:45.780 Look in the mirror.
00:26:47.240 Look in the mirror.
00:26:48.100 Those of you who said, Scott, you're wrong because there's a video.
00:26:51.560 Look in the mirror and look in the mirror and say to yourself, yes, I believe Scott's wrong
00:26:56.540 because there's a video.
00:27:00.600 Can you even say that in the mirror and look yourself in the eye?
00:27:04.160 You know that video doesn't mean anything.
00:27:06.760 You know that, right?
00:27:07.780 Does North Korea have the ability to find some old videotape that might look like he was touring
00:27:15.600 some facility that looked industrial?
00:27:18.500 Yeah.
00:27:19.760 How hard would it be to fake that?
00:27:21.980 Pretty easy.
00:27:23.280 Pretty easy.
00:27:24.540 Right.
00:27:24.700 Now, here's the fun part.
00:27:30.580 Let me, if anybody's new to this, let me say, I'm mostly having fun here.
00:27:36.720 If you mistakenly think you heard me say, I am 100% sure these are fake pictures and Kim
00:27:43.160 Jong-un is actually dead, I'm not saying that.
00:27:46.820 All right.
00:27:47.240 I'm just having fun.
00:27:49.440 But can you agree that the video has no evidentiary value?
00:27:55.140 Would you agree with that?
00:27:56.580 Would you agree that the evidentiary value of the video is zero in 2020?
00:28:03.060 I hope we can agree with that, right?
00:28:04.940 Because if you thought it was proof, I don't know where you've been for four years because
00:28:10.380 video is more misleading than anything else.
00:28:14.780 All right.
00:28:16.520 Secondly, here's some fun parts.
00:28:19.040 Now, the next thing I tell you, I can't put any assessment of credibility on.
00:28:24.760 Okay?
00:28:26.780 Somebody says, Scott, you mentioned video first, though.
00:28:30.600 Nope.
00:28:31.200 No, you can't change the history.
00:28:36.200 The only, the thing I saw first was the photo, still photo, and then later somebody said,
00:28:41.380 hey, there's a video.
00:28:42.500 So don't change the history, right?
00:28:45.460 So here's the fun part, and I can put no assessment of credibility on the next thing I tell you.
00:28:51.100 So a Twitter user, who shall remain nameless, took that photo and ran it through.
00:28:56.040 Apparently, there's a piece of software which is for this purpose, to find out if something's been photoshopped.
00:29:03.400 And the way the software allegedly works is that it finds edges.
00:29:08.340 So if the edges look either too good or not good enough, that's telling you something, right?
00:29:13.900 So there's the sharpness of the edges, like, you know, let's say the difference between Kim Jong-un's body and then his background, that distinction.
00:29:25.000 If it's too sharp or too fuzzy, that should tell you something based on the software.
00:29:28.880 So this Twitter user took that photo, ran it through the software, and what did the software say?
00:29:36.000 Well, according to him, and I'm not an expert at analyzing the output of that kind of software,
00:29:43.900 according to him, it's unambiguously a fake.
00:29:46.300 Somebody is yelling at me, in all caps, saying, you are angry, not funny.
00:29:58.440 What?
00:30:00.120 You are angry, not funny, in all caps.
00:30:03.160 Well, you get blocked for being unclear and yelling in capital letters.
00:30:09.380 All right.
00:30:11.000 So, what do you think?
00:30:12.840 Like, so if any of you can fact check me on this, I would put, I don't put any kind of reliability on what I just told you.
00:30:23.320 I don't know that there is such a thing as a piece of software that can reliably indicate whether something's a Photoshop.
00:30:30.760 I don't know if that's even a thing.
00:30:32.660 And if it is a thing, I don't know if it was analyzed correctly after it ran through it.
00:30:38.840 So, if somebody could, tell me, is there software that allows you to analyze a photo for Photoshop manipulation?
00:30:48.900 If that exists, run that photo of Kim Jong-un cutting the ribbon through it, and then tell me, in your opinion, does it look like it told you something?
00:30:59.580 And let me know if that software seems reliable.
00:31:02.460 I haven't researched that.
00:31:03.760 Anyway, that's just an open question.
00:31:05.160 This Flynn investigation stuff is just blowing my mind.
00:31:15.840 I don't know if you're having the same experience, but I made the mistake of watching the Netflix special about Waco at about the same time that all the Flynn information was coming out.
00:31:28.720 Well, man, you don't want to do those two things at the same time, do you?
00:31:34.860 I mean, you don't want to be watching the Waco Netflix special at the same time you're learning about the Flynn manipulations to get him to be guilty.
00:31:47.140 Let me talk about the Waco thing first.
00:31:48.900 So, if you're young or you just weren't following that, so Waco, there was a religious cult.
00:31:58.080 David Koresh said he was the Messiah, and he got a bunch of people to believe him and live in this compound in Waco.
00:32:05.380 And he convinced the husbands that they should not sleep with their own wives, but only he could.
00:32:13.040 And he was doing them a favor by having sex with all their wives while they couldn't because something, something, God.
00:32:20.940 So, that's your basic setup.
00:32:22.160 Now, I recall when I heard the story, he was sleeping with children, and that it was a big old child sex ring.
00:32:31.840 But if you watch the special, that's a little less clear.
00:32:36.640 What is clear is that there was at least one case in which he apparently married a 14-year-old.
00:32:42.800 So, yes, that's bad.
00:32:44.680 But, according to the special, that was actually legal at the time in Texas with the permission of the parents, which he had.
00:32:55.640 So, in other words, there was no evidence of David Koresh breaking the law in Texas, at least in that specific way.
00:33:04.800 They had a bunch of weapons, which they were not using offensively and had no plans to use them offensively.
00:33:11.380 It was just for self-defense.
00:33:12.540 And I think they had the answer for that, but that wasn't the big problem.
00:33:17.480 So, anyway, the Waco showed the mismanagement of the FBI and the ATF and how, basically, they killed these people for having different lifestyles, basically.
00:33:27.860 They basically just slaughtered a bunch of people for disagreeing with their lifestyle, but living an otherwise legal life, they just didn't want to be bothered by other people.
00:33:37.840 Now, you can disagree with all that they were doing.
00:33:43.360 That would be perfectly fair.
00:33:44.680 But the Netflix special did, I thought, a very balanced job of showing the good and bad on both sides.
00:33:55.540 And so, if you ever thought the FBI was good and the Branch Davidians were bad, that's going to really get messed up in your mind by the time you're done watching this.
00:34:04.280 You can't come away from that special without thinking that the government has a lot of bad dudes in it who do bad things.
00:34:12.180 Now, given that context, you know, of course, like all of you following this Flynn stuff, and if you just follow the Flynn part itself, it's just jaw-droppingly like you can't even believe it.
00:34:25.260 It doesn't feel like you could be living in a country where that could have happened in your lifetime.
00:34:31.380 And so, I'm actually having trouble incorporating this new information about Flynn into the part of my brain which holds reality.
00:34:40.100 Are you having that problem, too?
00:34:41.700 And it's not as if we haven't been, you know, warned that this was all coming and, you know, we saw it coming from a mile away.
00:34:50.420 But now that it's all confirmed, beyond any doubt that I have, you know, maybe somebody else has doubt, but all of my doubt has been removed about what was happening with the Flynn situation.
00:35:01.980 And it's obvious he was just targeted for destruction.
00:35:05.160 But then the second part is why?
00:35:06.940 Was it just that he was an important part of the Trump administration?
00:35:12.920 Well, here's where it gets interesting.
00:35:15.640 So, Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review, basically makes the case that the reason Flynn was targeted for destruction is that he was the only one experienced enough in the new incoming Trump administration that he would have known their game and been able to,
00:35:35.900 he would have been able to spot the fact that there was a coup being unfolding.
00:35:42.200 The coup meaning removing the president by simply looking and looking until you found something illegal or you forced some error.
00:35:51.500 So, in other words, according to Andrew McCarthy, and it's amazing that he can write this article and people simply just read it.
00:35:59.380 Like, you just read it, like it was no big deal, like you're reading about the weather.
00:36:04.560 It's like, oh, let's see what Andrew McCarthy's reading.
00:36:07.080 Uh-huh, uh-huh.
00:36:08.200 Yeah, members of the government were overthrowing the legally elected president.
00:36:14.140 Uh-huh.
00:36:14.960 Flynn, and then there's the lawyer.
00:36:16.780 Like, what?
00:36:18.760 What?
00:36:19.180 How am I reading this story like it's just an ordinary story?
00:36:25.280 These were people within the government who were literally trying to overthrow the legally elected government in my lifetime, recently.
00:36:33.820 They're still free people.
00:36:36.480 They're still walking around.
00:36:38.520 What?
00:36:38.980 These people are guilty of obvious treason, treason, something that would have destroyed the biggest country in the world in terms of, you know, the credibility of his government.
00:36:52.360 And they're still free people?
00:36:54.680 Oh, my God.
00:36:57.300 It's mind-blowing.
00:36:59.080 Now, I think Andrew McCarthy goes further than the evidence does.
00:37:04.480 I don't think he would claim otherwise, so I don't think I'm disagreeing with him here.
00:37:08.240 But I disagree with the certainty of the conclusion.
00:37:15.420 Because the certainty of the conclusion that the reason that Flynn was targeted was because he was too capable, and if they got him out of the way, then Trump was just a sitting duck with nothing but inexperienced people around him to protect him.
00:37:30.360 I can't rule that out.
00:37:31.840 But if you said to me, Scott, give me another hypothesis, I would say, well, maybe it's just as obvious as you think it is, which is they went after everybody they could get.
00:37:44.420 So they thought they could get Flynn.
00:37:47.040 They had something they thought they could get him on.
00:37:49.580 So they just went after him.
00:37:50.800 So it could have been they would have gone after anybody they could get, because we've watched the anti-Trumpers do exactly that.
00:37:58.380 If anybody shows a little bit of weakness, like right now they're going after Michael Caputo, because because he had some humorously offensive tweets in his past.
00:38:09.640 And that's that they were just offensive.
00:38:11.560 They weren't anything else, nothing with an ism on it, you know, no racism, sexism.
00:38:17.160 You could try.
00:38:18.340 I mean, you could try to put that stuff on his tweets, but they're really not there.
00:38:21.760 He's just being humorously offensive, you know, in character that the bad guys target anybody who's prominent in the Trump world to try to take him out.
00:38:34.920 By the way, I'm predicting that in the next month that that's going to happen to me.
00:38:39.860 So here's my prediction.
00:38:40.780 Sometime in the next 30 days, I would expect to be taken down by somebody in the mainstream media or otherwise, probably probably a mainstream article.
00:38:52.940 And here's why.
00:38:54.740 Because you noticed yesterday that the president retweeted me three times and then four or four times.
00:39:02.080 If you count the fact that he also retweeted a tweet that I retweeted talking about Greg Gutfeld, what he was talking about on the five.
00:39:11.680 So presumably people who are watching the president, and that's a lot of people, probably scratched their head and said, why is the president retweeting this random guy so much?
00:39:25.420 And at some point, they're going to say to themselves, we need to take this guy out because his voice is being influential.
00:39:35.520 Now, if you remember the 2016 election, and you may remember that Bloomberg did try to take me out.
00:39:45.340 So Bloomberg did a hit piece on me, and it was obvious that it was a hit piece from the start.
00:39:50.680 It wasn't anything but a hit piece from the way it was set up to the way it went.
00:39:56.000 And I mistakenly thought that I was so clever that I would answer questions in a way that would be so disarming that even though I knew it was going to be a hit piece, it wouldn't work out the way they wanted it to.
00:40:09.900 So that's what I naively thought would happen.
00:40:12.960 What I didn't count on is them just making stuff up, taking things out of context, you know, the usual stuff.
00:40:19.300 So there was no way for me to avoid getting hit in a hit piece, even though I thought I might be clever enough to avoid it.
00:40:29.100 Now, if it were a live recorded interview, nobody's going to touch me in a live recorded interview.
00:40:38.200 Here's another prediction.
00:40:39.260 Nobody on the mainstream media will have me on to any kind of show between now and Election Day in a live, unedited interview.
00:40:52.700 Do you know why?
00:40:54.940 I'm too good at it.
00:40:57.520 I'm too good at it.
00:40:59.320 They're not going to have me on.
00:41:01.020 So it's the same reason that Steve Cortez got kicked off of CNN.
00:41:04.500 He didn't get kicked off of CNN because he didn't do a good job.
00:41:09.360 He got kicked off of CNN because he was a little too good.
00:41:14.240 Not a little too good.
00:41:15.800 He was way too good because he's really good at communicating.
00:41:19.340 So when Steve Cortez would make the case for the president, CNN would be waiting for all the stupid parts.
00:41:25.940 Because they try to get the worst representative of the other side, somebody who's not good at it, so that their case looks stronger.
00:41:37.040 And then Cortez will go on there and he'll just slay, perfectly reasonable, fact-based, shows his work.
00:41:44.780 And they'll just be like, maybe you shouldn't be on CNN anymore.
00:41:48.580 So they basically just didn't let him on anymore.
00:41:53.640 So that's my prediction.
00:41:54.760 There are some people who are good enough at communicating that the mainstream media just won't have them on live.
00:42:02.060 But I do predict that they will try to entrap me, or maybe not even interview me, in which they'll take a bunch of stuff out of context.
00:42:11.080 And they'll dig up things that are fake news from the past.
00:42:13.680 And they'll put together a little package to show that nobody should listen to me because of all those bad things I may or may not have done.
00:42:19.840 So that's my prediction that I'm probably in the crosshairs by now.
00:42:26.540 Anyway, so Andrew McCarthy thinks that getting rid of Flynn was all part of the bigger plan to clear the way to get rid of Trump.
00:42:35.660 Do I buy that hypothesis, that theory?
00:42:38.600 And the answer is yes-ish, meaning certainly that had to be part of it.
00:42:46.620 I would say it's fairly safe to say that at least a little bit of their thinking was if you get rid of capable people around the president,
00:42:58.180 you know, you can kind of whittle from the outside until you get them.
00:43:01.020 That seems fair.
00:43:02.620 But I don't know if it's the whole story.
00:43:04.420 So here's a question I would raise.
00:43:08.340 Everything Andrew McCarthy said sounds reasonable to me.
00:43:11.320 All the pieces fit together.
00:43:13.080 It's shocking, but probably true, or at least true directionally.
00:43:18.460 I just feel like there's more to it.
00:43:21.440 Feels like there's a little extra context missing.
00:43:25.320 Maybe someday we'll have it.
00:43:26.660 Who knows?
00:43:29.600 I saw a lawyer slash artist.
00:43:31.660 I looked at his profile so I know he's a lawyer who fancies himself an artist.
00:43:38.420 His name is not important, but he made this tweet.
00:43:41.120 He said, talking about Joe Biden, and under the hashtag, hashtag GoJoe,
00:43:47.200 people were saying good things about Biden,
00:43:48.740 and I was having a good time reading how weak the compliments are for Biden.
00:43:56.100 Now, think about the things that Trump supporters have said about Trump.
00:44:00.000 They're, like, so off the hook, complimentary.
00:44:04.660 I mean, to the point where it looks like people are in a cult.
00:44:08.860 When people praise President Trump, it sounds almost ridiculous.
00:44:14.080 It's so complimentary.
00:44:15.940 And here's somebody who's complimenting Joe Biden.
00:44:19.900 See if it rises to the same level of compliment.
00:44:24.000 Quote, I love his compassion, his integrity,
00:44:28.740 and the fact that he stands against, rather than praises, Nazis.
00:44:33.900 So this is the best thing that somebody could say about Joe Biden.
00:44:37.420 Three things.
00:44:39.160 Compassion, integrity, and he stands against Nazis instead of praising them.
00:44:45.420 Now, of course, that third thing never happened, right?
00:44:48.640 That's based on the fine people hoax.
00:44:50.980 So one of the three things is based on the most debunked of fake news in the world, right?
00:44:56.800 So one of the things in favor of Joe Biden is that he didn't do something that the president also didn't do.
00:45:04.080 In fact, nobody did.
00:45:05.860 It was just fake news.
00:45:07.740 So forget about the one that's fake news, but he's got these other two good points,
00:45:11.920 that Joe's got compassion and integrity.
00:45:14.840 And I tweeted back, you know, basically, if that's the best you could do,
00:45:21.260 his compassion and his integrity,
00:45:23.540 I tweeted back that that's the same qualities that my dog Snickers has,
00:45:28.820 but I disagree with Snickers on policy.
00:45:32.320 In other words, if the best qualities you can come up with for why you like Joe Biden
00:45:37.940 are words that you might use to describe your own dog,
00:45:42.880 I don't know that there's a lot of enthusiasm there, right?
00:45:51.020 Not a lot of enthusiasm there.
00:45:54.300 So I would look for that.
00:45:55.840 Now, apparently the polls are still showing Joe Biden leading by a commanding amount.
00:46:01.340 And there's something interesting going on.
00:46:02.960 The Republicans are saying, eh, don't worry about it.
00:46:05.740 The polls are fake.
00:46:06.700 But experts are saying, eh, don't be so quick to judge these polls as fake.
00:46:14.220 Because they're so consistent.
00:46:16.940 They've been consistent for a long time, and they're consistent across polls.
00:46:21.600 And it looks like Joe Biden has a clear path to the White House.
00:46:27.520 Unless, I'm just going to throw this out there.
00:46:31.080 Unless, Republicans lie to pollsters.
00:46:38.320 And you know they do.
00:46:40.480 Now, I don't know if they lie so much that it can close a six-point gap.
00:46:44.240 I don't know that 2020 will be like 2016,
00:46:49.220 and that the pollsters will be surprised on the final day.
00:46:52.500 Maybe.
00:46:53.540 It could definitely be different this year.
00:46:55.460 But try to understand why.
00:47:00.240 Why in the world would Biden,
00:47:03.820 and there's really, there's just nothing there.
00:47:05.940 Like he's a bag of dust lying in the corner of your garage.
00:47:13.160 And he's leading the president,
00:47:15.260 who's got, you know, actually really good job performance,
00:47:18.320 according to his party, the people who voted for him.
00:47:21.840 So, oh, somebody says you've caught us.
00:47:25.460 I think there might actually be a difference
00:47:30.120 in how Republicans answer the polls.
00:47:32.560 But here's the counterpoint.
00:47:34.820 Apparently, the 2018 midterms,
00:47:38.860 people also thought the polls were wrong.
00:47:41.700 Because if you ask people, they'd say,
00:47:43.280 ah, yeah, the polls are wrong.
00:47:45.060 Republicans are going to do well in the midterms.
00:47:47.540 That's what people thought.
00:47:49.320 But the polls were right.
00:47:51.640 So in the midterm, the polls were right.
00:47:53.960 Would they be so wrong?
00:47:55.120 Yeah, so it could be that Trump breaks all the rules
00:48:01.180 so that polls about Trump are unusually imperfect.
00:48:07.420 I think that's very possible.
00:48:11.700 All right.
00:48:13.100 Where is the slaughter meter?
00:48:14.320 The slaughter meter is at 200%,
00:48:16.700 assuming that Biden is the actual eventual candidate
00:48:21.180 on election day.
00:48:22.240 If Joe Biden is the candidate on election day,
00:48:28.740 President Trump, I don't know how we could lose, really.
00:48:32.900 It's hard for me to envision that the two of them
00:48:36.800 could go toe-to-toe and that Joe Biden would be the one who's left.
00:48:40.560 I mean, I can't even, I can't even, I can't even picture it.
00:48:49.480 Yeah, that's true.
00:48:50.540 They, did the Republicans do better in the Senate?
00:48:54.400 Somebody says in the, in the comments.
00:48:57.100 But we were talking, it was the House that people predicted
00:49:00.220 the Republicans would do better, not just the midterms.
00:49:06.600 Joe hasn't shown his face.
00:49:08.320 Well, maybe it's because Joe Biden keeps merging with that,
00:49:12.600 that ventriloquist puppet, Walter.
00:49:16.000 Have you ever seen that puppet?
00:49:17.500 Who's the famous ventriloquist?
00:49:20.660 Always works Vegas.
00:49:22.720 He's got a puppet of an old guy who's got a permanently downturned mouth.
00:49:27.480 Like this.
00:49:28.320 Ah, my mouth is permanently downturned.
00:49:31.160 Like Joe Biden.
00:49:32.620 Joe Biden's mouth is permanently downturned.
00:49:35.820 When he's just at rest, he looks like the saddest, unhappiest guy.
00:49:39.800 With his permanently downturned mouth.
00:49:42.940 Do you think we can elect a guy with a permanently frowny mouth?
00:49:46.680 I don't think so.
00:49:47.680 Somebody says the 2018 polls said there was going to be a big blue wave.
00:49:56.460 Yes, that is what I'm saying as well.
00:49:58.900 So let me say it clearer in case I was unclear.
00:50:01.700 When people were asked who they thought would win,
00:50:05.320 Republicans thought that they would do well,
00:50:08.020 even though the polls said they would not.
00:50:10.840 So the polls were accurate,
00:50:12.640 but the people who were asked if the polls would be accurate
00:50:15.520 and said, no, they won't be accurate, but they were.
00:50:18.260 I hope that's clear.
00:50:20.360 Somebody says Kamala as VP wouldn't change the dynamics.
00:50:24.800 Well, yeah.
00:50:27.040 I mean, whoever the vice president is will change the dynamics, of course.
00:50:31.480 Of course it will.
00:50:33.500 Jeff Dunham.
00:50:34.340 Yes.
00:50:34.800 Jeff Dunham is the ventriloquist with Walter the dummy.
00:50:38.660 Thank you for that.
00:50:44.500 All right.
00:50:45.380 So that is all I have for today.
00:50:48.020 It's more than enough.
00:50:49.700 More than enough to take you into the greatest day all weekend.
00:50:56.180 One of the best, I think.
00:50:57.640 I think you're going to go forth and have a good, good day today.
00:51:01.360 Let's wait for more good news coming out.
00:51:03.340 I'm waiting for more and more great things to happen.
00:51:08.240 And you should hear some of them today, maybe tomorrow.
00:51:12.300 And I'll talk to you tonight.
00:51:14.240 You know.