Episode 296 Scott Adams: Wildfires, The Tucker Test, Forgotten Black Voters, More

Date: 2018-11-11 | Duration: 58:29

Topics

“Bad forest management”, President Trump vs. Alyssa Milano Should it be illegal to report how segments of the population vote? Reporting creates an “us vs. them” frame Reporting sides, causes people to take sides Boxes of votes keep getting “found” CNN correctly reports no proof of voter fraud, true, but… Fox and conservatives say look at all the suspicious stuff Suspicious stuff isn’t proof of crime, just like Russian collusion Why do all the found votes always favor Democrats? Are Democrat run things less competent than Republicans run things? Republicans are more system process oriented, follow rules Democrats are more goal oriented, less rules oriented SNL had Crenshaw on for “free punch-backs” at Pete Davidson Dan Crenshaw brought respect for veterans in his appearance Pro-Choice commercial, my view…it’s fake IMO, from a mole or hoax “The Tucker Carlson Test” IF an article doesn’t include reasons, just links to the reasons THEN the reasons don’t exist or are a misinterpretation Mueller’s “dozens of sealed indictments” What would he do if he possesses info that could cause a civil war? Alexa, who is Scott Adams? Some funny person changed Alexa’s response to be Scott Dale Adams Macron statement about need for France to protect themselves from America Fake news ignores that statement refers to cyber defenses

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:06]

I don't bump bump bump bump bump bump on the phone hey Nicholas come on in here while you're coming in I'm gonna give you a reverse angle so you can see he look out the window today some of you might you might know that I was showing you the view out my window the other day and all of those low hills that you can see now were invisible even yesterday so even yesterday you couldn't see those hills it was all smoke but it looks like today there's either a turn in the wind or maybe the firefighters are more successful but I'm far enough away from the fire that I will not be personally affected I do know people who have lost their homes or probably lost their homes I don't know the details yet so thinking about all those fire victims the fire is

[1:07]

about all those fire victims the fire is truly horrific let's talk about that little so president Trump his first mention of the California wildfires was in a tweet which was roundly criticized from both the left and the right for being tone deaf and in his tweet he said that the essentially he he put the problem on bad forest management in California and said that if they didn't get their act together maybe he would deny federal funds now Alyssa Milano famous anti-trump critic tweeted back and I don't know the facts on this so I'm gonna just tell you what he said and I'll tell you what she said but I don't know which one is right or they actually they both could be right but I don't know the details so that Alyssa Milano said that essentially 98 percent of the

[2:07]

said that essentially 98 percent of the forest in California is federally owned in other words it would be the federal government's problem if the forests had not been well managed now that doesn't make it exactly Trump's problem because I assume that whatever mismanagement is happening is a you know a multi-year thing it's not something that happened in two years but whether or not ELISA was exactly right or a little bit right is a little bit off the topic it's a good question I'd like to know the answer to it but I think most people thought the tweet was tone-deaf because he was criticizing criticizing the state at a time when the state was literally on fire and people were people were being burned to death in their cars so in terms of tone and timing it was a complete failure even if even if

[3:09]

complete failure even if even if technically there was some point there about you know a forest management that could be done better I'm guessing that couldn't be done better but I don't know if that's exactly the problem somebody I saw somebody comment that the real problem is these fires were on the border between civilization and forests in other words the PG&E lines are what caused it so when you put civilization too close to forest you get bad stuff fires but in any case for those of you who say Scott you never criticize the president I usually don't criticize too deeply on policy stuff because I don't know enough about policy but on communications and persuasion I'm usually praising the president because he usually gets it right and gets it right sometimes so right that you've never seen it that right before in this case yeah yeah in

[4:11]

right before in this case yeah yeah in this case I don't think there's anything right about it so that you can add this to my my list of things which I'm clearly on record of saying this was not a good now the president did follow it up with a more empathetic tweet in which he mentioned the victims and the devastation and we appreciate that but if you're literally sitting in the middle of a yeah I read that tweet but while I was breathing the air of vaporized citizens of my state and so quite literally I was breathing in the ashes of the burned up citizens of my state while I was looking at a tweet criticizing my state's forest management which by the way it might be terrible I don't know if it's good or bad so timing wise timing wise not good now trying to

[5:18]

wise timing wise not good now trying to try to keep it real all right so some some times the President does amazingly good stuff sometimes a tweet does not land does that mean he should not tweet no no he should definitely keep tweeting and frankly I don't hate the fact that I we get something closer to his real opinion I don't hate the fact that it's a little bit human meaning that you see the flaws you see the good stuff you gotta see it all but that was clearly a flaw I tweeted this morning one of my followers on periscope was probably watching right now has pointed out and I think quite correctly that there's a another one of those cases of the dog that's not barking so the midterms came and went and there's a story that you haven't heard and I don't know why you haven't heard it from the left you haven't heard it from the right it's like it doesn't exist and here's the

[6:19]

like it doesn't exist and here's the story the black vote I'm old enough to remember meaning you know three months ago when the black vote was important and that people cared and if there was an election there would be lots of reporting about the black vote did the black vote go this way or did it go that way did somebody get more than usual I did see NBC had a article by a Republican strategist pointing out that Republicans were not winning the Millennial vote and not winning women and that it would be a big problem the by the way the Latino vote is also not mentioned but nor is the Asian vote and it just completely not mentioned does even anybody even know which way the Asian American vote goes nobody reports that why is that you're relevant that feels to me like there are a lot of

[7:19]

feels to me like there are a lot of folks involved why don't we care about their vote what you know what it was the focus on Millennials and women as suddenly the two variables that matter so I just put that question out there I'm not entirely sure that we should ever even report that sort of thing imagine if you will this is just a thought experiment I thought of this right now so don't assume this is a good idea but I'll put it out there so we have we do have laws about restricting freedom of speech around very specific situations one of those situations is you can't stand right next to the voting booth and express your freedom of speech you have to you have to have a certain distance from the voting booth so freedom of speech we do sometimes suppress for very specific tactical reasons such as getting an election that's fair suppose we had a law I'm not promote I'm not proposing

[8:20]

law I'm not promote I'm not proposing this but just put it out there suppose we had a law that says that polls cannot report the breakdown of who voted in other words you could do a private poll so you could privately know if you're a politician but suppose it became illegal to publish it suppose it became illegal to know which segments of the population were voting which way would that make the world a better place or a worse place it's a thought experiment and I don't actually know the answer that but it seems to me that every time it's reported every time it's reported it seems to me it creates a frame of you know an us-versus-them frame but if you had a law that says not it's just Americans the only thing you can do well maybe you could maybe you could measure Democrats versus independence versus Republicans but you would never be able to report on gender and you would never be able to report on race what would

[9:23]

be able to report on race what would happen I think over time the sides would start to blend a little bit more at the moment if you're a woman let's say you're let's say you're a 19 year old woman and you're trying to decide who you are in the world you know you're not you're not a kid anymore you're not a teenager you're an adult and you're trying to you're trying to get into your adult mindset you know you're trying to figure out who you are as an adult what does it do to you when you read the news and all the talks about is that women vote this way if you're 19 and every headline says all the women vote this way women do this wouldn't do that isn't that influential doesn't the reporting of the sides cause people to take sides I would think yes I don't know how to test that and I'm not sure we could ever

[10:23]

test that and I'm not sure we could ever make a lot of that because freedom of speech and freedom of the press are too important but I just put that out there now I'm watching the Broward County situation unfold and somebody pointed out now let me just before I leave the question about the black vote the the risk that black voters have is that they become irrelevant by their own actions right as long as we live in a world where we do report who votes which way the black vote has rendered itself irrelevant by always voting the same way
and maybe that's why nobody even reports it anymore or at least that since the midterm it's conspicuously missing from the headlines so I just put that out there as a observation and I don't think it's unimportant now in Broward someone

[11:23]

it's unimportant now in Broward someone pointed out that when you look at the news on CNN they're not really talking about Broward too much now they do report it but they report it very differently than you're seeing in the conservative news outlets so to the Conservatives there's clearly something going on because there are so many pieces of evidence the big piece of evidence is that votes keep showing up and they're always democratic they're always Democrat votes hey we found a box of stuff well let me guess more Democrat votes in that box and Republicans I'm just gonna go out on the limb so it's deeply deeply suspicious but watch now with the two the two sides are reporting it CNN is reporting it this way no evidence of voter fraud has been found yeah that's sort of true meaning that nothing proven of any scale has been

[12:25]

nothing proven of any scale has been found I think there was something about a box found here or you know twelve votes got mixed in with 200 so there are a few stories like that that would suggest things are imperfect but CNN correctly reports correctly that there's no proof of some kind of massive voter fraud just a couple of irregularities they're definitely worth looking into now Fox News and people on the right and social media are saying well it's obviously voter fraud and they will give you all of these circumstantial reasons why why is it all the votes go the same way how could you possibly have this many votes why could it possibly take so long why is it always Broward County why is it why is this Brenda Snipes at the center of controversies and and then there are a number of things on the street like a truck that was being unloaded and you couldn't tell the Chain of Custody that's a red flag

[13:26]

the Chain of Custody that's a red flag etc so what does this remind you of it reminds me of a reverse Russia Russia gateless : a reverse Russia collusion the two networks have just reversed how they cover that right the the Russia's situation is see them continually saying well there's no proof of collusion but what about this meaning what about these people who had nothing to do with anything but were convicted and they will give you ten pieces of evidence that are not evidence of growth they're not proof of any kind of collusion but they feel kind of suspicious if you put them all together meanwhile Republicans are doing exactly the same thing with the election they're saying well it's not proof but look at all this stuff it's impossible that all this stuff could be a coincidence one of the things I'm writing about at the moment in my book that you won't see for a year

[14:27]

in my book that you won't see for a year or so is how easily you can be fooled by lack of imagination if you have a bad imagination and somebody says look at all these facts there's only one thing that this could lead to and the only thing you can imagine is the one thing that's been mentioned look it all means this okay I can't imagine any other reason this would be true but let's take Broward for a moment and see if we can imagine anything else that would explain what we're seeing can you think of any other hypothesis that would explain everything you're seeing in Broward without massive voter fraud but would incompetence always get you more Democrat votes than Republican could it be incompetence that it's always in one

[15:29]

be incompetence that it's always in one direction because incompetence seems like a random thing right sometimes incompetent we'll go this way sometimes incompetent would go that way could it be that it's always incompetent in the same direction because I'm not I'm not sure that just incompetent would get you mistakes that only go in one direction so what so what else could it be I'm gonna give you a hypothesis and the hypothesis goes like this the polling sites that are run by Republicans are well managed that's it that's the alternate hypothesis the Republican polling places that are managed by Republicans if there are any are well-managed and so you don't see any mistakes coming from that side but if you are unless a Democrat managed

[16:31]

if you are unless a Democrat managed area and somebody finds a box of uncounted ballots on the floor it's just bad management there was just a box on the floor if you see a Chain of Custody that looks a little lakhs it could be just that it could be nothing but a poorly managed site in which Democrats are in charge yeah it's still incompetence but it's a special kind of incompetence in which Republicans are a little more dedicated about chain-of-command and making sure everything's appropriate and they're not losing any boxes whereas the Democrats just don't manage the process the same way and they're a little more relaxed about process now would that be unusual not really because what is it about Republicans that defines them as a party one of the things that defines Republicans is they're really sticklers about process and rules and the law so

[17:36]

about process and rules and the law so if you had two groups just hypothetically all right I'm not just stop right here to tell you I'm not defending anything and I'm not telling you what the answer will be in broward whether it's gross voter management or just incompetence I'm not giving you my opinion I'm giving you a competing hypothesis that you can compare so the competing hypothesis is that Republicans are acting like Republicans lots of respect for the law they're doing less drugs on the job right you know that's true there you know fewer drugs maybe they're a little bit more process driven really making sure every every dot is covered that would be very Republican Democrats are more about the outcome I've talked about this before that Republicans are more about the system is it in the Constitution is it in the law what's our system Democrats are more like hey I'd like to get a Democrat elected or wouldn't it be good if we had

[18:39]

elected or wouldn't it be good if we had fairness or what if we had more income equality so there's there more goal oriented without the system that gets you there if you took those two groups who self self-identify so all the people who self identify as rule-followers who really really care about the rules and then the other group self identifies as more more about the goal than the process they're a little sloppy in the process but they're they have good goals they like a better world if you self-identified those two which of the two are more likely to have problems in the process where they forgot a box of votes which group could have a whole truck full of votes that they forgot to count well the ones that came out of Democrat managed areas so there is a competing hypothesis that just says what a group is simply better at it than the

[19:39]

a group is simply better at it than the other and that it's it's because of self-identification not because there's anything naturally different about the groups and that yeah of course I'm over generalizing I'm over generalizing in front of you exactly the way that you just identify so you have to compare those two hypotheses incompetence that is mostly at one side so that the incompetence when you find a vote it's usually on the side where they lost it all right you've heard the thing that when you're looking for something that's lost you only you always find it in the last place you look and then it's a joke because the last place you look is where you found it so you don't need to look anymore of course it's always the last place you look likewise if all the mistakes are on one side that's where you find the mistakes all right nothing on that did you so on

[20:41]

all right nothing on that did you so on a more fun level you probably know the controversy about SNL's Pete Davidson made fun of Republican candidate Dan Crenshaw's eyepatch you know you and Dan Crenshaw apparently lost an eye in military service and so when Pete Davidson made an aside about his lost eye it's like I guess he lost him to war or something kind of trivialized it the country country pushed back and said hey II can't treat a vet like that now my understanding is said Dan Crenshaw sort of just laughed it off or didn't you know he didn't make a big deal about it himself he just had a sense of humor about it I believe that was the story but anyway last night apparently the real Dan Crenshaw was invited on the show to mock Pete Davidson to even the doubt I gotta say whatever you think of

[21:41]

doubt I gotta say whatever you think of P Davison it was kind of brilliant because he he promoted Dan Crenshaw in terms of respect so he put him on a you know an even basis and then he led he he left Crenshaw have a free punch and then after Crenshaw took a free punch he gave him a chance to have another one so I think Crenshaw got three free punches to compensate for Davidson's what he would you know he's recognizing as something that maybe stepped over the line so and I'm asking myself if you're a military person or even if you care about military people he is it is it your is it your belief that people shouldn't do dumbass things shouldn't make mistakes shouldn't tease people alright nobody believes that right everybody makes mistakes and my standard for how you deal with life the

[22:44]

standard for how you deal with life the way I judge people is not by the mistake it's just a loser I think it's loser think to judge people by mistakes because we all make them especially if they're verbal mistakes things you said in public that you shouldn't have that's the worst way to judge somebody what you should do to see how they react react to their mistake now it's it's a show that only happens once a week so the 48-hour rule isn't quite as useful but in this case you want to see how they react to it and in my opinion Pete Davidson's reaction to it was self-deprecating respectful completely appropriate I will give him a plus and in my my personal way of judging people means that the original offense is now wiped from the books to never be spoken of again except to enjoy enjoy the story all right so whatever

[23:45]

enjoy the story all right so whatever you think of these two people I thought they both they both accounted very well for themselves secondly part of the story is how did how did Dan Crenshaw do in let's say what's the right word representing the military how did Dan Crenshaw do in in the way he responded to it from the start through the SNL really well Dan Crenshaw really I think he brought respect to people with military service a plus from him so this is one of those rare situations where every thing was done right by two people who I can like now I mean I liked it before but I liked it better all right let's talk about people keep asking me about this alleged of abortion commercial that we see on the Internet I think it was me in a while ago but for some reason it's floating around if you haven't seen it

[24:48]

floating around if you haven't seen it it alleges to be and I'm using the word alleges here yet alleges to be a commercial in favor of pro-choice in other words a pro abortion rights video except that the way they go about it is to show a cute baby and the cube bait in the words over the baby say stuff like she deserves to be loved she deserves to be taken care of or whatever and then it says she deserves to be a choice and you look at her you go this is a pro-abortion commercial showing an actual living baby who we love now people are saying isn't this the worst persuasion you've ever seen who could be so dumb to make this commercial here is my here's my judgement on the commercial it's fake it's not real so my judgement on that commercial is that it was not made it

[25:50]

commercial is that it was not made it was not made by pro-abortion people in all likelihood it was made by anti-abortion people who want you think I want you to think it was made by pro-abortion people there isn't now I don't have proof of that except that I've lived in the world and I would make a very large bat that it was not made by people who want you to want you to receive the commercial the way it looks it was either a mole or or it's just a hoax
pro-life saves little babies somebody's saying alright so somebody say it was satire I don't know because it would be hard for me to imagine that someone thought you would laugh about it so do not treat it like it was a serious commercial meant to be pro-choice I don't think that's what it was I'm

[26:50]

don't think that's what it was I'm willing to be wrong about that by the way if it ever comes out that somebody can find out the real source of that and all that then that would be terrific but I think it's a fake commercial if for those of you who follow me on Twitter and especially if you take the time and I don't know why you would - look at my retweets and replies one of the things you'll notice is how many times critics will come on to my Twitter and say oh yeah if you're saying that about this situation what do you say about this situation you hypocrite and it never works with me it just never works this morning somebody said oh yeah you're saying that people should not have gone after Tucker Carlson what did you say when when Alex Jones went after the what was the shooting the Sandy Hook thing and apparently docked somebody and I

[27:53]

and apparently docked somebody and I think to myself I don't remember supporting that I'm pretty sure I'm consistent the bad behavior is bad behavior wherever it comes from yeah so people pull the what about ISM on me and it just never works because I think I'm pretty consistent about not liking things that are disreputable and liking things that are good for the world I'm sure there'll be an exception someday now let's get into the dangerous stuff that I put toward the end of my periscopes because the week will never get there like my critics will never go through an entire periscope like if you're a person who dislikes me you're not going to sign on to this periscope and wait you know 30 minutes for me to say something you don't like you're gonna bail out much easier so by this part in the periscope I'm usually just talking to for the most part talking to people who can understand my context yeah and you have

[28:53]

understand my context yeah and you have to understand my full context to really understand anything I say which is true of everybody but probably more true for me because I I deal in nuance more than other people so it's more important to know my context and I've developed something which I call the Tucker Carlson test the Tucker Carlson test and it goes like this you read something on the Internet let's say it's something about the anti-shah people who went to his house I tweeted an article about it this morning which is a really good article by the way you should read it it's somebody who is an observer who watched the who watched the entire protest and has some differences in terms of some of the details now I I don't have an opinion about whether Tucker's version of the details is more accurate than this observers version of the details but I would say that it's in the details and the they're not

[29:54]

the details and the they're not important details and that there's a fog of war that happens over these things for example somebody in the crowd did mention pipe bombs when Tucker's wife who was hiding inside and was afraid of who these people were heard the word pipe bombs she got worried and so it was reported that maybe somebody was talking about using a pipe bomb The Observer reports that they were talking about the pipe of bomber who had been in their opinion influenced by rhetoric from the right so the reference to the pipe bomb was actually the opposite of dangerous because they were talking about let's have less pipe bombs essentially I'm you know oversimplifying it so they weren't saying let's bring a pipe bomb they were saying you know stop saying things that might cause people to bring pipe bombs but if you're a crowd masked people outside of somebody's door

[30:54]

masked people outside of somebody's door and you mentioned the words pipe bomb don't expect that to be clear so there's a there's a fog of war about the details but none of the details really change the nature of what happened I would say it's essentially the same with or without those details well here's the Tucker of Carlton test I have tested a number of people on the Internet with this test and they have all failed the article that I sent around this morning also failed because the article does what a lot of the people on the anti right side do they say there was a protest at Tucker Carlson's house and it's probably because of all the racist things he says and then they'll link to something that should show you the racist things he says and I think to myself here's the first here's the first red flag if somebody a public figure and it doesn't have to be Tucker but just

[31:54]

it doesn't have to be Tucker but just some public figure if they said something that was racist wouldn't at least the quote because it's probably just one sentence of racism right that clearly says they're racist wouldn't that quote be included in the article as opposed to just a link where you have to go look for it ask yourself that right wouldn't they include the racist quote and you see this all the time for example when they talk about the president they say well you know but that thing he said in Charlottesville or they'll give you a little laundry list now most of them are hoaxes as you down but Charlottesville one is just a hoax but they'll give you reasons you can at least check them and they put them right in the body of the article there might be links as well but they also mention them if somebody writes an article about Louis Farrakhan and they say Louis Farrakhan his a racist don't you usually see in the article because he said this or that about Jews it's usually writing

[32:56]

or that about Jews it's usually writing the article there might be a link to it but the least summarize it so you know yeah I think termites was the offending phrase but with Tucker watch how often they don't mention what it is he said they just link to it and so I said okay great people keep telling me that Tucker says racist things I watched Tucker's show almost every night I've probably seen I'd say I've seen I don't know 80 or 90% of all the content he's produced since he's been on Fox and well before that as well and I haven't seen any so I thought to myself finally somebody provided a link I'll go follow the link and I'll find out what it is he said that somebody is calling racist because I really was curious I I didn't have any idea I didn't even have a good guess of what it was and I go to the link and it's a conversation they're linking to a video

[33:57]

conversation they're linking to a video in which he's talking to Mark Steyn a frequent guest on his show and doctor made this point that and I'm paraphrasing that if immigration is unchecked it will change your culture and that shouldn't the people who live here in our legal citizens be the people who decide how or if their culture is influenced and how it evolves the question is who gets to make the choice you've heard me talk about this before right no we're in the link did Tucker say it's bad to have more Hispanic influence it wasn't there it wasn't even slightly there it wasn't even alleged it wasn't alluded to it was a very clear statement about it's important who makes the choice do you simple simply let people who don't live in the country decide what your country becomes this is not a good or

[34:59]

country becomes this is not a good or bad this is not we should have less of it at no point did Tucker or Mark Steyn say we should have less of this what they said very clearly is who gets to decide is a nation an important entity in which the nation gets this how or if it evolves in any direction it doesn't matter if it's good or bad or one you like or when you don't it's simply who gets to decide that was the number one piece of racism evidence against Tucker Karl that he believes the Constitution should be an important guiding you know and the laws of the country should be guiding principles that was what they called racist oh my freaking God that was it that was the best example now keep in mind if there was a better example than that I'm

[36:01]

was a better example than that I'm pretty sure they would have linked to it right you're not gonna link to the bad example if you've got a good example so online I've been giving people the Tucker Carlson test because quite a few people have commented on my comments and they've said that you know he's a he's a racist and he's firing up racist feelings so he had it coming you know he's people were essentially justifying the protesters at his house and I say - I've been saying to a number of them can you send me a link to the one best piece of evidence of your point that he's racist you mean you don't have to send a laundry list just give me your best piece of evidence because if the best piece of evidence is nothing or a misinterpretation I don't probably have to look at the second best one do I maybe not because if the best one is literally an illusion or a hoax like the Charlottesville hoax

[37:01]

or a hoax like the Charlottesville hoax then you can sort of know what the rest of them are likely to look like so I call it the Tucker Carlson test where you get somebody to send you any bit of evidence to support their claim that Tucker has promoted racist to anything indeed if you were to look at it objectively he more than anybody on Fox probably invites on opposite points of view now I will say that the points of view he invites on tend not to be the most eloquent speakers I don't think he's inviting the best representatives of the other side but that might be a function of who's willing to go on the show in the first place you might not be able to you maybe you can't get the most let's say effective speakers for the left just because it's Tucker show and it's on Fox News but I don't think you could find anybody well

[38:02]

don't think you could find anybody well here's another challenge find me anybody on who's associated with conservatives or associated with Fox News just associated with the right find me anyone on the right who is more inclusive of viewpoints from the left who literally invites one on the show just about every single show is there anybody who comes close you know and I find myself in this weird situation of defending Tucker and I you know that's not my point of this my point of it is how we view the world and you know are we being rational and are we being hypnotized or are we being honest brokers of truth all right I got one more point and this one's a dangerous one there I saw an article I don't know how credible it is that Muller has something like dozens of

[39:05]

Muller has something like dozens of sealed indictments now I'm no lawyer so I don't know exactly what I'm talking about here but the the suspicion is that these sealed indictments are going to be bad news for the president now if I had to guess and I had to bet on it I don't think there's anything in the Muller indictments that will be a kill shot in other words nothing that will remove him from office or a kwasind Beach 'men but there might be plenty of little stuff that is sort of almost kind of bad but not
not so bad you remove a president but some people think it is and other people's think it isn't so it's likely there'd be something in that messy area where it's ambiguous and I thought to myself what would happen to the country if Muller actually had the goods spoke in it doesn't even mean the goods are true it

[40:07]

doesn't even mean the goods are true it just might be a good case suppose suppose Muller came up with a good case for removing a sitting president and happened to be this president and suppose that case didn't look credible to part of the country now if it's a credible case against any president you can usually get enough people to say ok we didn't know about that if we had known about that we would feel completely different about it but now that you tell us we're reassessing so regardless of what President were talking about if if it was good clear convincing evidence of anything bad people would kind of get on board with our a we got to make a change here but suppose it's murky suppose Muller Muller has something that's really really bad but not exactly credible meaning that the people on the right are gonna look at it and say that's no proof that's no evidence you made that up what would Muller do if he possessed

[41:10]

what would Muller do if he possessed information that would cause a civil war it's a real question that's it let's let's say you're Muller and I'm gonna make some assumptions about Muller my first assumption about Muller is that he's a patriot now Patriots can be biased right they can be left or they could be right but Muller is served in the military he was a you know he's served in these government positions even his critics are a pretty positive about him he has gone this far without a single leak without without a single misstep that we've noticed Muller is a pretty stand-up guy now I realize you know if he comes up with something that the pro-trump side doesn't like there's going to be a lot of a lot of pushback against him but at the moment I would say Muller is probably a Patriots

[42:10]

would say Muller is probably a Patriots lead at the very least he cares about the fate of the country you know he may prefer it going one direction to the other he may like or dislike the president but I'm sure he likes the country are you all with me so far would you at least agree that even if Muller was biased in one way or the other at the very least he likes the United States all right what would happen if he had some information which if releasing it even if it's true even if it's true would cause a civil war what would you do with it if you were a patriot and you said okay this is my job to release it but if I do release it it will destroy the world because if the u.s. goes down the world's in trouble - I mean the odds of another world war are pretty good would he release it what would he do how would

[43:10]

he release it what would he do how would he deal with it now my my expectation is he doesn't have anything but suppose he does he might be tempted to bury it what would you do if you were Muller and you found something that really wouldn't change anything for the good let's say hypothetically let's say hypothetically you found out something that would cause a civil war but if nobody found out it really wouldn't make any difference in other words that life could go on without us knowing this information and we'd all just be happier for it he's like okay and that just happened in the past that was not ideal but it doesn't really change anything there are a lot of possibilities here and one of them is that Muller has something that could cause an actual civil war

[44:18]

yeah so I just put that out there as a possibility that I hadn't considered before are you a Russian spy somebody says totally by the way if you haven't seen the latest episode of a TV show called Modern Family it is the funniest thing there there's a the the latest one I think the the description would be something about there's some suspicion that the characters are having an affair so that's the description you will look for it but there's a scene in it about Russia that is so freakin funny and you'll you'll understand it because of the headlines
all right somebody asked me to ask Alexa who is Scott Adams Alexa who is Scott Adams spout Dale Adams is the creator of the Dilbert all right who did that

[45:37]

cancel did you hear that you may have but you may have missed the punchline somebody changed my name so that my middle name is Dale I don't know how they do that but you heard the other day that somebody changed changed Alexa in terms of Jim Acosta and they they inserted fake journalist instead of journalist so somebody did I don't know how you're doing it and by the way I would love to know how you did it that was actually really good I'm gonna do it one more time well well we'll check on this to see how long it lasts because it's kind of hilarious all right I'll do it again Alexa who is Scott Adams
Scottdale Adams is the creator of the Dilbert comic strip in the author of several non-fiction works of satire commentary and business his Dilbert series canceled it's on Wikipedia oh

[46:40]

series canceled it's on Wikipedia oh it's just reading Wikipedia oh is that it does that what's happening I didn't realize that's how easy it is you just change Wikipedia so I just have to look at look myself up on Wikipedia Wikipedia
yeah so it's you won't be able to see it there but the this is right from Wikipedia scottdale Adams okay very funny I'll give you a full credit for that oh sorry I sent off a lot of other people's devices all right I think

[47:45]

people's devices all right I think that's all I have to talk about is there anything else happening now yeah I do need a better picture on Wikipedia am I going to change it back now I'm not going to change it actually don't have any involvement with my own Wikipedia page well that's not true I have I have edited down some so in the old days the old days I don't ten years ago people were putting conspiracy theories and just our a fake news on my Wikipedia page and so there was at least once I can't remember if I've done it more than once at least once I've gone on to my own Wikipedia page to correct the things that were just literal just made up and people push back and I had this weird situation where people were correcting me about me if there's

[48:47]

were correcting me about me if there's one topic I understand better than other people it's me so that was a weird situation
yeah avenatti is going after tucker and there's some weird story about Tucker and his daughter and his son being at a some Golf Club restaurant and getting into it with a patron I I don't know how much of that is true but you're not supposed to edit your page why can't I edit my own page why would that be I don't see why that should be illegal should that should be the most legal thing you could do because there are other people checking if I if I edited my Wikipedia page for something completely false it wouldn't last very long because I'm the public figure people would just change it back

[49:51]

we should not edit our own Wikipedia pages I I would I don't know what should means in that case if it's against the rules I would question the rule but I could see why you might have one if it's not against the rules and you're correcting something that's just factually inaccurate why not oh yeah let's talk about Trump in Europe and the rain so the story as it's reported is that President Trump was supposed to go to some cemetery I guess was to honor two World War one American veterans but because of the weather he did not go now it's being reported that therefore he doesn't care about the military so first of all it's kind of ridiculous to claim that the President of the United States this specific president doesn't care about the military because I don't think we've ever had and who talked more about the military in positive ways or did more really so

[50:54]

in positive ways or did more really so it's it's I consider it a such a non credible criticism that it really detracts from the credibility of anybody who says it first of all but here's the other thing remember my rule about just because you can't imagine another explanation for the facts that doesn't mean it's not there it might be the limit of your imagination so let me give you an example if let's let's say the President of the United States was supposed to go to the event and either he or Melania I'm guessing she was there and probably she was going to go suppose one of them had a had diarrhea
you know just normal diarrhea they had a stomach flu what would you tell the press would you tell the press the president's knock didn't go to the event because the first lady has the shits would you probably not you've probably

[51:55]

would you probably not you've probably blame the weather or something who you and and yeah so in all likelihood either the president was up all night because something came up that we don't know about so it could have been it could have been as simple as although this isn't simple it could have been a national security problem that were not supposed to know about that caused him to be awake all night and at his age and given the importance of his position it was more important than he guessed some sleep so he could make good decisions than it was to attend this event because whatever it was that kept him up all night for national security may have been the most important thing in the world we would never know that they would just say I didn't go because it was raining right now here's your tell your tell that you are not supposed to believe this story is that it's so weak do you see that when you say the

[52:56]

do you see that when you say the president didn't go to the event because it rained there a wink with that wink he didn't go to a planned event that was very important because it rained wink wink you don't hear the wink I hear a wink in that story if if they wanted to give a real reason why he didn't go it would have been a stronger reason the fact that they gave a transparently weak reason is the wink it's a wink and that tells you that he had there was something else going on that it's better we don't hear about how about there's lots of stuff going on that it's better we don't hear about that's probably 80% of his job is working on stuff that we shouldn't hear about right away right so it is far more likely if you're just if you're looking at this objectively and you're not just taking sides you know if you're not just taking sides he didn't go because it's raining should

[53:59]

he didn't go because it's raining should be taken as I don't want to go in the date because I need to wash my hair all right it's supposed to be transparent otherwise they would have done it better I think now it's possible that you know the the the theory that his critics are putting on it's like my god he's been pretending for 70 years to like the military and finally we finally know the truth that for 70 years he's been putting on this show about being supportive of the military but it was all a trick as soon as it rained he wouldn't even visit a grave okay is that likely is that really is that even slightly likely I mean it is in the sense that anything's possible but it's very very unlikely compare that to my hypothesis that he had a good reason or at least one he doesn't want us to know about could have been a stomach flu could have been something he had to work on all night he could have been having a fight with melania that kept him up all night he

[55:00]

melania that kept him up all night he could have you know almost anything all of those choices are far more likely especially when you look at the wink-wink week upon week reason they get it was raining can't go out in the rain nobody goes out in the rain wank wank was it a dist McCrone I don't think so yeah that doesn't make sense I think he and McCrone actually understand each other by the way the McCrone tweet in which he said that maybe europe should have its own forces you know to to take on not only china and russia but the united states you heard that quote right and you thought to yourself wait a minute France needs a military to protect against the United States that's crazy and you know what the real explanation

[56:01]

and you know what the real explanation to that is that's not what he said now you're looking at the tweet and you say well he clearly said that that's an exact quote he mentioned Russia China and the United States as the reason their France needs to have its own you know military service but then somebody said the context was cyber cyber military actions now when you put it in the context of cyber it all makes sense because one of the things we know is that our allies are spying on us they're using cyber against us and we're using cyber I hate to say against but all of the allies are sort of cyber burying each other if you know what I mean and we're definitely bugging France France is definitely bugging us if they can get it so if you're talking about the cyber world the spy world it's not it's not a ridiculous thing to say that the United

[57:01]

ridiculous thing to say that the United States is one of the forces the France might want to protect itself from because we're definitely in there cyber pants and you know don't you think Great Britain is in our cyber pants don't you think that is really in the United States are our sort of spying on each other even though we're best friends it's kind of the the fabric of reality at this point all right still not a credible statement why would it not be a credible statement to want to keep your allies and of your business I think that's a credible statement we're certainly trying to do that on our side why wouldn't we we've already talked about the California fires and I'm going to sign off now because I've run out of things to say bye for now oh wait did I have a simultaneous up I did not what the hell is going on I showed you the

[58:03]

the hell is going on I showed you the forest fire smoke and I forgot the simultaneous epic you're not going anywhere until you lift your cup your mug your beverage vessel you lift it to your mouth and you join me in this simultaneous sip now now we can say goodbye for today although I might see you later talk to you then