Episode 475 Scott Adams: Obstructing Hoaxes, Biden and Bernie, Healthcare, Russia, Hamas

Date: 2019-03-31 | Duration: 1:19:06

Topics

Obama admin Russian Collusion investigators… …may have also been running the Russian collusion hoax? Is obstructing them (if true), obstruction of justice? Our opinions are assigned to us by the media we follow Our opinions tend to match the news we follow Did Mark Schneider save the world? Senators and Congressional people follow me Did they see and understand Gen IV concepts here?
Mark is my guest here on Periscope, Tuesday April 2nd Mark Schneider: @SubSchneider Nuclear Expert NO experience has become a Presidential candidate qualifier Obama had almost no political experience Biden’s long record is a target rich environment Bernie’s head injury and…Bernie’s political policies Kamala is protected so far, no Dems are coming after her After all the white males are taken out, she’ll be the candidate Hamas support seems to waning across the Muslim world HOW and WHEN did the Russia investigation begin? ONE person, hand-picked four people to decide if Russia hacked election Did ONE person (James Clapper) shape the conclusion? Four intelligence people…NOT 17 intelligence agencies Millennials aren’t having much sex, why? Dating hookup apps have a female advantage 100% of women are selecting the top 20% of men Porn quality, availability, and the “crossover” point The Russian climate model is the only one predicting current data Other top 30 models aren’t accurately predicting new data Russian climate model says climate change NOT a danger NOBODY has challenged the accuracy of Russian model Audience AMA

Please donate to support my YouTube channel:
https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays
I also 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

[0:07]

boom-boom-boom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom Bob hey everybody come on in gather round we still have empty seats up front Tyler and Beth come on in good to see you guys and gals and we got lots to talk about oh yes we do but can we talk before we enjoy the simultaneous if I don't think so I think it's time for coffee with Scott Adams that's me grab your cup your mug you were jealous you're Stein your tankard your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous simple so the news is is funny news again today I like it when there's lots of news and it's all the funny stuff you know there's there's no

[1:07]

funny stuff you know there's there's no terrible tragedies going on that's a fun day so john brennan tweeted the other day that sure he accepts he says the country should accept that there was no collusion found by the Muller report but there's still this question of a of obstructing justice still the obstructing justice question so I retweeted that with my question can you obstruct a hoax is it illegal to obstruct a hoax now the people who know more than I do the lawyers said to me it absolutely is even if you are not guilty of the crime if you actively do something to to block the investigation of the crime you did not commit you could still be guilty of obstructing

[2:08]

you could still be guilty of obstructing justice now what I heard that I applied immediately I applied the dershowitz rule if you don't know the dershowitz rule it goes like this don't believe anything you hear in the news about the law until you hear alan dershowitz opinion because for whatever reason he's literally the only TV lawyer who's even trying and when I say he's the only TV laureate lawyer who's even trying I mean that all of the other TV lawyers are so obviously in the bag for one side or the other that they're just advocates so you can't really take the advocates seriously they could be they could be right I mean I'm not saying an advocate is always wrong but you can't tell that's the thing if they're in advocate mode which all of the other lawyers are you can't tell if

[3:10]

the other lawyers are you can't tell if they're selling you something or if it's true you just can't tell but when Gershowitz talks since he has such a clear track record of taking whichever side the law is on so he'll side with the Democrats if the laws on their side he'll side with the Republicans but if the law is on their side he's the only person who's credible was a TV lawyer so I saw him talking about it and he said the following he confirmed that you can be found guilty of obstruction of justice even if the underlying crime didn't happen and you knew it didn't happen but and here's the but part he points out that you would rarely be convicted for that that it's it's technically against the law but the odds of being of being convicted for obstructing justice that actually wasn't justice at all because you were innocent

[4:12]

justice at all because you were innocent sure the justice system still has to check I understand that they have to do their work but he said rarely rarely prosecuted or maybe it was rarely convicted it was one of those two things but they they end up being similar now askew in this situation the specific situation with President Trump if he had tried to obstruct oh and by the way as Dershowitz also points out it can never be obstruction of justice for simply the president doing his job so his job description gives him certain powers and if all he's doing is exercising his power within the Constitution that that can't be obstruction according to der Sherman's now so the president firing Comey for example is just part of the president's job he hires and fires so that alone probably could never be a question of obstruction of justice according to dish ones and I imagine he

[5:12]

according to dish ones and I imagine he has the better opinion on this but beyond that beyond that let me ask you this is this simply a case of the president being accused of obstructing something like justice or a justice process is that all that's happening here no this is a special case of this and this is why I'm curious about it the special cases that the hoax was perpetrated by the very people who were investigating it that's not your normal situation your normal situation is that the the justice system is just doing their job and it happens that you're not guilty there's no there's no there's no precedent for the hoaxers the people who made up the hoax to be the very group

[6:13]

made up the hoax to be the very group that is investigating the hoax if you tell me that a jury is going to find anybody guilty for investigating a hoax that the person who obstructs is the boss of the people who are doing the hoax that's that's important he's the boss of the people doing the hoax he knows it's a hoax because he's the one who knows what he did nobody else knew but the president knows exactly what he did or did do so so the president isn't wondering if it's true he do at least in terms of his own involvement and but given that the people investigating were the bad guys you can't tell me that any jury in the world would find a boss guilty for firing somebody who is perpetrating a hoax against the boss you know and I get that there's the obstruction of justice element that doesn't apply to just being a boss but in this specific case there

[7:17]

a boss but in this specific case there isn't the slightest chance that this could be illegal in a way that he could actually be convicted now I don't know if there's some automatic stuff where you have to go through indictments or whatever yeah if the if the evidence had been strong enough you know maybe there's some automatic you got a you got to go through the legal process but realistically realistically do you think you could find 12 citizens who would say yeah he knew it was a hoax by the way all he was doing was his job firing hiring and firing and the people doing the investigation were running the hoax under those conditions no jury can find that guilty none none so any thought that the obstruction of justice charge is first of all possible as a risk is like zero and secondly that well it's

[8:17]

like zero and secondly that well it's just ridiculous so I wouldn't worry about let's talk about who's running the world I've said two things that people take as contradictory and I thought I would clear them up one thing I've said is that our opinions are assigned to us by the media in other words if you run into somebody at a cocktail party you have a couple of drinks and he makes the terrible terrible mistake of talking politics something you probably should never do in public anymore it's just bad it's just bad especially in a work context don't talk politics it's bad for your career but if you did give in this conversation what do you think the two of you would be talking about here's what here's what you should watch for the two of you will be talking about what you saw on TV meaning what the people on TV are talking about think

[9:19]

the people on TV are talking about think about all the things that happen every day and are happening in politics in the country this this gigantic you know basket of things that happens every day but what would you be talking about at your cocktail party you would be talking about today's headlines in this little corner of this little bit of all the things that happened would it be true that that little bit you're talking about is the important stuff not a chance not a chance because it's just a little part of all this big ball it just happens to be the fun part it's there's a rumor there's there's a sex scandal it's the most unimportant part and you'll see you'll think to yourself my god this is the most important thing happening because the news industry convinced you it was it's all they're talking about if you turn on the news and all they're talking about is the steel dossier for example you think the steel Doce is the

[10:22]

example you think the steel Doce is the most important news in the world and when you go to your party and you're talking to your friend you're talking about the steel dossier now in that case it actually probably was pretty important but the point is nobody really has opinions that don't match the news and that's not an accident you could do the following experiment let's say you took a bunch of people who had been following the news and then you ask them what's important and then you would write it down and you would find that what they said was important it was very close to what the news says is important by how much they cover it then do a second experiment where there are people who have never watched the news and you just give them all the information straight with no opinion it's just straight reporting somebody said this as far as we know somebody did this no opinions on it what would the the control group who had not been influenced say about the news

[11:22]

not been influenced say about the news if they had been presented it's just straight with no opinion you would not look anything like what the group who watches the news and thinks it would be a complete disconnect in fact let me give you let me give you my classic example you remember that the news has been illegitimately promoting the hoax that the president called the racists in Charlottesville fine people now if you look at the transcript you can see that he specifically excluded them in plain words without prompting so it was always fake news but it was widely reported now if you ask anybody in the country did the did the president call the racists fine people probably 85% are gonna say yeah I heard it with my own ears 85% of the left the people on the right never took it in that context because it wasn't meant in that context in other words they understood that he was talking about the non racist now suppose

[12:24]

talking about the non racist now suppose that story had been reported without any spin and all and the person in the control group simply heard the president's speech and the president said there were that there were fine people on both sides and then you saw the president continue on and say I'm not talking about the neo-nazis and the white supremacists they should be condemned totally what would the control group think happened nothing that they wouldn't even know that any news had happened because what they would have heard is something that is obvious and they agree with it they would have heard that there were some good people there and some bad people there and they would have thought nothing of it then it was said how some people were bad some people were good you that would be the end of it you would have no thought beyond that except

[13:25]

would have no thought beyond that except that there were some bad people there and some good people that's it you would not take that to the next level unless the pundits had led you there so the the thing they say is they'll say but then they were marching how could there be good people there if they were marching with neo-nazis how could anybody be a good person and also marching with neo-nazis but that didn't happen there's no reporting that that happened and indeed it turns out by weird coincidence I don't know if I've told you this yet but weirdly I've actually encountered two people who were at the Charlottesville event who dislike the racists as much as the rest of you do and were there for the historical monument preservation reasons so I actually personally know two people and and were they marching with the racists no they weren't that they were just a

[14:25]

no they weren't that they were just a different part of that very large area and they watched it or they guy think at least one of them got there late and didn't even see it now the argument for the historical preservation person was it's sort of like Isis taking down statues when they conquer territory it's not it's not a question of whether you agree or disagree with the statue but it has some historical significance now I disagree with that I think they're offensive and should be taken down but it's a reasonable opinion now so the point is on Charles Vil if it just been reported as fact nobody would have even thought it was a story at all and you see that with lots of other stuff so my point being that people do not have independent opinions on politics they get it from their news source now I've also said provocatively there were a weird period of time in which because of

[15:26]

weird period of time in which because of social media a good idea can bubble up from just a person just person on the internet simply has a good idea puts it in a post puts it in a you know a tweet or a post and other people say hey that's a good idea mate forwarded so we're in this weird place where a good idea can change the world and it doesn't have to come from Thomas Edison whose job it is to come up with good ideas it could just be you were sitting on Twitter and you're thought huh this would be a good idea bmep beep and suddenly you change the world now has to be a good idea we may have seen something like that happened in the very last few weeks specifically my favorite nuclear expert mark Schneider has been working you know I've talked to him a bunch and he's been tweeting a lot and doing some periscopes to try to educate

[16:26]

doing some periscopes to try to educate the public on the fact that the generation four types of nuclear technologies solves the problems of the bad nuclear technologies the past in other words they don't melt down they're easier to make etc and and we've done a lot of talked about you know both I and Mark about the the need for the u.s. to get serious about trying to figure out how to test and iterate these designs until the US have a solution for a climate change if climate change is really a problem and even if it's not it's still exactly the same thing you'd want to do and and Bill Gates is on board with that as I tweeted recently so did Mark Snyder just save the world now probably there were other people thinking along these lines and maybe the it's possible that the administration was going to do whatever it did just let us out it's possible but I can tell you

[17:29]

us out it's possible but I can tell you that there are senators and congressional representatives who follow my account and they would have seen probably for the first time as most of you did well just make the assumption that people in Congress are regular people and their blind spots in the world might be kind of similar to the rest of the public how many people in Congress understood generation four nuclear power to be an obvious path and really the only path how many of them knew that or a year ago do you think do you think a year ago the people in Congress understood that the new kind of nuclear technology doesn't have the risk of the old stuff and it's just the obvious thing to do probably bad but there are a lot of people in the White House a lot of people in Congress a lot of people in media a lot of people follow this periscope so because mark has knowledge

[18:32]

periscope so because mark has knowledge and good ideas about nuclear potential because the internet exists and because I like those ideas and I boosted them and by the way I'll be talking to mark on periscope again on Tuesday I think next week and it's entirely possible that mark was an important part of the process of information flow to get people in the government to say I didn't really understand this and now they do so I think it's compatible the fact that that we get our opinions from the news but the news wasn't really giving us an opinion on nuclear was it I don't remember the news doing a lot of specials on nuclear potential or anything it was just sort of this this big empty spot so because it was a big empty spot it allowed a knowledgeable person who had good intentions to enter

[19:34]

person who had good intentions to enter it and make potentially a world-changing I mean a really fundamentally world-changing difference now we'll never know how much influence any one person had on this but I at least put out the possibility that one person has created a chain of events that will change the world and one of the most positive ways the world has ever changed you know since the moment we realize they're washing our hands was good for health yeah I mean it's that big of a potential difference and I'll give you links to mark if not today then at least on Tuesday on Tuesday I'm also I'm sorry on Wednesday next week I want to give you a heads up I'm gonna do a another 8020 periscope if you don't know what that is it's where I spend 20 minutes teaching you 80% of what you need to know about some topic the topic will be how to be a

[20:37]

some topic the topic will be how to be a writer so I'm gonna do a special periscope 20 minutes 20 minutes long to tell you 80% of what you need to become a professional published writer I'll teach you the basics very quickly I've had to write well and then I'll then I'll tell you the the the things you need to know to actually get published and how to work your way up to get attention you know so you'll learn all that on Wednesday I'm not sure when I'll do it on Wednesday but it'll be recorded so you could play it back anytime you want there would be no need there would be no need to see it live it would actually be better recorded because you can start it where you want and fast word if you need to ascend so that's why is it here's an interesting thought do you know when when we talk about Biden being the leading candidate or at least he was I guess he lost his place to Bernie now because the latest news but we often talk about the advantage of all

[21:39]

we often talk about the advantage of all of his experience and now what I would like to propose the following thought that in 2019 well let's just say from I'll expand that time for for a long time now it has been an advantage to not have experience when running for president if you look at if you look at Obama one of the things he had working for
for is the very thing that people thought was working against him what people thought was working against Obama as they he did not have a legislative record he just hadn't done much before becoming president turns out that's the very best place to be because if you haven't done much there's there's not much to criticize now if you look at Biden's record it's just so long that

[22:41]

Biden's record it's just so long that you can absolutely always go back to an earlier time when whatever he was saying or doing or whatever his policy preferences were were at a whack with modern days so basically anybody who's got a long history and you can dig into that history it's accessible to us is going to get the Cavanaugh treatment you're just gonna make up stuff they're gonna find things you did that you would never think were good ideas today and they're gonna act like you would think it is a good idea today so I would say the Biden is the weakest candidate even though he's falling at the top he's the weakest candidate to run against Trump because it's such a target-rich environment now compare that to Beto let's attack betos past decisions what are they I have no idea I have no idea what better was done before probably nothing so I would argue that when we talked about you know Beto not

[23:43]

when we talked about you know Beto not having experience we're seeing it upside down his lack of experience is what makes him Obama like also his lack of experience is what makes him Trump like the fact that so Trump was the the continuation of this trend whereas easier to get elected if you haven't done a lot in politics because everything you did in politics is going to be targets so if we take that filter Bernie the interesting thing about Bernie is that he's been vetted because he ran before so we kind of think we know all the bad news about birdie there's not much else to come out so if Bernie were younger he would be really dangerous in terms of a candidate against Trump but I tweeted this morning the if you haven't seen it the photo well I'll call it up in my phone just in case that he hasn't seen

[24:44]

phone just in case that he hasn't seen it so most of you saw the photo of Bernie with his head injury he he did his head on a shower door I guess and
he's a trooper and I'll give him credit for this so he just you know went right out and he was campaigning and stuff but the problem Bernie is it created a a file photo of Bernie with a head injury and now I'm watching Fox News hilariously pair his head injury so let's see if I can lighten this up a little bit so you can see it better so Fox News is hilariously comparing his head injury or put or juxtaposing it so here's the head injury and then they put it next to his crazy ass socialist opinions so there they are hilariously matching pictures of him with a head injury with his socialist opinions which they would think are well the sort of thing you might do if you had a head

[25:45]

thing you might do if you had a head injury so now that the the worst part of the head injury aside from the fact that it's so perfectly fits the the narrative that his policies are crazy is that it makes him look old and feeble right if you if you hurt yourself on the shower door and you're 25 nobody thinks anything of it they just think the ground was slippery people have accidents wouldn't mean anything but if you if you slip and hurt yourself that badly at his age your mind immediately goes to I don't know if he's going to make it so the whole term yeah is it you it feels doddering next if you do hurt yourself and you have a head injury don't put a gigantic bandage on it and go out and public where people can take pictures of it before you run for president not a good look so I don't think Bernie has a chance

[26:48]

so I don't think Bernie has a chance because he looks I hate to say this because I respect him a lot I have a lot of respect for Sanders accomplishment how he's how he's changed the topic how far he got against Hillary the fact you know the fact that he didn't make as big a deal about it as he could have after he got screwed by Hilary's team there's a whole lot to like about Burton right there's a lot to like about him but unfortunately his time came and went and I think he missed his window so he would be a week a week competitor against Trump so I would expect that Kamala Harris will end up rising through the ranks as the as the white men get picked off by the rest of the party because there are plenty of people want to pick off the white men you know the Bernie the Biden the Beto the three B's because

[27:50]

the Biden the Beto the three B's because they're they don't really represent what the party represents anymore but I don't know that there's anybody in the Democratic Party who's gunning for a Kamala Harris like yeah I don't know that there's any natural part of the Democrats who say we can never have a person of color a woman who's been a senator for our candidate the that person doesn't exist so I think Carlos still has a straight line to the nomination it just doesn't look like it at the moment but when the Democrats get done taking out the white males it'll become law all right that's my prediction so are you watching all the big news about the military action and the best between Hamas and Israel what you're not watching the news about Israel and Hamas

[28:50]

watching the news about Israel and Hamas and the demonstrations and the attacks neither I buy and that's my point have you ever seen less news about military action against Hamas what's it mean I'll tell you what it means it means the world has given up on Hamas it means that even the other Arab countries they don't give a flying like a bell Hamas they don't seem to have any support and so I think that's the news so again this is you know the real news is the stuff that's not in news like the fact that's not in the news makes it news and that is that I believe all empathy is gone there seems to be almost a universal global disinterest in a mosque so I think Israel's and I would

[29:51]

mosque so I think Israel's and I would go further and say the Israel's security depends on having a legitimate military enemy wouldn't you say because the do it let's do a thought experiment let's say that every every enemy of Israel put down their weapons held hands and said we're done with all military action we would like to live in peace with with the nation of Israel so you know we just want to be good neighbors we'd like to some of us would like to be able to go back to live there again with no problem we just like to live in peace what that work for Israel well in the short run it might you know well let's say somebody says they're lying but let's say they're not let's say you know just this is just a mental experiment I'm not saying this is possible I'm just saying what what if they did what if they did well it would be very hard for Israel to stay a Jewish

[30:56]

be very hard for Israel to stay a Jewish state wouldn't it because the natural demographics the natural immigration just the natural flow of things would eventually create a non-jewish majority over time which would essentially change the nature of Israel to the point where wouldn't make sense so the at least it wouldn't make sense the way it's currently structured so I ask you this isn't the best-case scenario to have an enemy that is weak that's their best-case scenario so having Hamas do things that even the rest of the world says that don't do that and then having Israel push back with you know something like force that's in at least the neighborhood of the force that was used against them is probably their ideal situation because

[31:58]

probably their ideal situation because how hard is it for Israel to keep the Golan Heights given that it has a legitimate you know security concern it's easy as long as there's some kind of a legitimate threat against Israel they can increase their territory they can you know stay strong they can stay a Jewish state so Hamas is sort of doing exactly what Israel needs them to do I don't know if anybody thinks of it that way but if you imagine what would happen if there if there were no resistance well I'm not sure that it would Israel would remain a Jewish state 40 years from now so that's just a mental experiment by the way just just to be perfectly clear I support countries doing what they need to for their national interests Israel does a really good job of pursuing their national interests and I never have a problem with that if it's if it's a

[33:00]

problem with that if it's if it's a legitimate national interest I would do wouldn't matter who it was Israel or anybody else I think you have to expect that that's that's a reasonable thing to do for every country including ours I would like to quote one of the funnier things I saw Twitter today and I don't know if this is an original joke but Charlie Redmond tweeted it at me and he said he was talking about Bernie Sanders and so this was his tweet about Bernie Sanders he said never trust a man who combs his hair with the balloon it's pretty good isn't it Sanders combs his hair with a balloon you could totally see that all right in our in our excitement about the the Muller investigation I found that I and apparently a number of other people had forgotten how the Russia investigation

[34:01]

forgotten how the Russia investigation started because it's widely believed that the the steel dossier was the beginning of the Russian investigation and then I'm hearing other people saying no no you fool the rest ahead and get investigation into interference with the election started well before the steel dossier so I thought I can't remember how all this started so I asked the question somebody tweeted me a link to Wikipedia and let's say Wikipedia has the accurate information so does anybody remember I so I'm looking at your comments the most important thing in the news but do any of you remember how it started no I I haven't seen anybody have the right answer yet now wasn't the Papadopoulos thing I think the Papadopoulos thing followed wasn't Carter page so it wasn't

[35:02]

wasn't Carter page so it wasn't Papadopoulos and it wasn't Carter page say now look at me isn't this interesting that most of the people in the country are watching the news and the most important thing in the news wasn't McCain wasn't Flynn that wasn't Hillary emails it wasn't any that wasn't the dossier uh-huh somebody has the right answer I guess you probably went to Wikipedia and looked it up the answer is James clapper let me read to you and now look at this through the filter of what we now know all right now we didn't know what we know now when this news was first reported so you have to put a different filter on it basically what we now know here's from the quote from Wikipedia in January 2017

[36:07]

wait that can't be true yeah okay looks like I got the wrong part so I guess I still don't know how it started I still don't know how it started because the Wikipedia entry is so confusing I thought I thought I had captured the paragraph that explained it but when I read it its 2017 so that can't be right
so I think I have to IIIi just have to stop stop in my tracks because I just did this whole set up where I was gonna tell you you don't know how this started and then I was going to tell you how it started and then I read it again and I realized I had a date that doesn't make sense so I literally still don't know how it started I just read up on it I read up on it just now and I still don't know how it started does anybody know how it started all right but look but I was trying to pivot to this point we have taken it on faith that the Russians

[37:07]

taken it on faith that the Russians haven't interfered with the election and the evidence for that is not the Trump involvement because that that was all cleared so there was no collusion but there is solid evidence we are told of the following the Russian troll farm made ads that that were trying to sell division they had fake accounts that tried to create some racial divisions and they what was the other thing they did oh they they hacked Podesta's dnc email alright so those are the those are the solid evidence that Russia influenced our elections well let's look at those pieces of evidence number one if you saw the actual ads created by the troll farm you would think that they were made by high school kids and their total impact compared to the whole election completely belies the story is

[38:12]

election completely belies the story is that the right word belies it makes a it it gains a is the stuff I've been learning some vocabulary words lately I'll try not to use them in public but the fact if you actually look at the actual ads it's completely obvious that this was not a sophisticated spy operation it looked just just looks like some high schoolers made some memes that had no talent and then whatsoever and they tweeted them out and some people retweeted them that's it now if that's the best that Russia can do what would be the smallest thing they could do that we would still say is interfering at our election let me give you an example if one day Putin was visiting with his family and his twelve year old nephew said uncle Putin do you mind if I make some memes against Hillary Clinton and

[39:13]

some memes against Hillary Clinton and Putin looking at his twelve-year-old says sure go ahead make some memes against Hillary Clinton I don't care and then his twelve-year-old makes the memes and they get retweeted a hundred times would you say that Russia had interfered with our election well apparently you would because they literally Putin gave the order to a twelve year old the twelve year old made one meme it got a hundred retweets that's interference now you say to yourself scouts out snot yeah you're you're giving me this stupid trivial example which is so unlike what really happened I don't even need to think of because the real thing happened let's just talk about the real thing well the real thing was a lot closer to the 12 year old with one meme because it was so weak than it was to anything else so the point is yeah maybe they interfered but apparently and then the

[40:15]

interfered but apparently and then the conclusion is that they interfered to get to trump elected but they also interfered to cause to sow discord so they were just sort of sowing some discord and stuff like it wasn't even focused so it was a tiny little effort very poorly done and not even really focused because some of them were anti Clinton it doesn't really make sense but I don't doubt that it happened I just doubt that it was a Putin plan because it was so weak that either Russia is way weaker than we think they are that they don't even have any real hackers I don't know then the other thing that we we know to be true so this is known facts reported by all media that Russia was behind the hacks of the DNC server how do we know that because our intelligence

[41:16]

do we know that because our intelligence people told us who were the intelligence people who told us that doesn't matter do you trust any of them our only information that that Russia act us comes through the very organizations that have no credibility do you remember when we heard that 17 organizations agreed and then later and I think I might have been the first person to tell you there's that isn't a thing if you hear this 17 organizations agree you don't even know that you don't need to know the details to know that's not true why if you have any experience with big organizations you know that they didn't duplicate the work there were not 17 organizations doing independent research and coming up to the same conclusion that doesn't happen anywhere that's not even a thing it was obvious from the first time I heard 17 organizations agree that likely a few

[42:18]

organizations agree that likely a few people did some work and said what do you think of my work and the other organization said well you're the FBI or you're the CIA or wherever you are why wouldn't we agree of course we agree and then it turns out that it was Brennan who had hand-picked people from four organizations so it was never 17 that was a lie it was more like four but those four people were hand-picked by one person if one person hand-picked four people is it really for people's opinion or is it the person who picked them who knew who to pick well it's kind of down to one person so if you're going to believe that Russia hacked the hacked us you're kind of down to one person's word for it and it happened to be the best the most obvious Liars in the world clapper and Brennan now since then I believe other people have probably

[43:18]

believe other people have probably confirmed it right so it's you know they were the starters but you would have to also say other people have confirmed it those other people who have confirmed what Brennan clapper think that they confirmed the other people who agreed with them also didn't do the work I don't believe we've seen anybody who did the work and we're only taking the word for people who are known to be not credible so that which we are accepting as fact that Russia interfered with the election it is a fact that they had a trivial tiny weak influence on some memes that could not made any difference that's probably true the hacking might be true too but we as a public should not believe it's true it isn't it is not in the realm in the category of credible

[44:19]

in the realm in the category of credible things be true right being credible or not credible is just how you think about it independent of whether it's true but believing it is sort of a sucker's play even if it's true you would be believing it for the worst possible reasons you just got lucky if you believed it and it was true all right so I have big questions about Russian interference in terms of how it's reported it's probably trivial but if the United States is is seeing that they're doing other things that are non-trivial wouldn't you assume that we're doing the same stuff back to them I mean not election per se but we're doing cyber operations I would hope so so let's talk about health care I heard a Republican advisor type on TV the other day I don't remember his name but he was saying that the president made a strategic error in taking on

[45:21]

made a strategic error in taking on health care and Obama care so early when he should have milked his victory over the the Mahler stuff and I thought to myself yeah I understand the point politically that he had a win so he didn't milk that as long as possible but he's also still the president right could you support this president if all he did this week was milk the molar report we sort of hired him to do work and health cares sort of right at the top of the work we hired him to do so if you're telling me it's a strategic mistake for the President of the United States to work on one of the nation's top priorities instead of enjoying his week of victory I I don't respect that opinion at all because I think he needs to work and do real things now the

[46:21]

to work and do real things now the criticism I'm hearing is that the president is I guess he's added the administration to some lawsuit that could get rid of Obamacare yeah that gets held up by the courts courts uphold the getting rid of Obamacare people are saying how could the president president be so reckless and stupid to get rid of Obamacare while having no new plan oh he talks about a plan and he talks about the Republicans being the new the party of health care but that plan doesn't exist it's just sort of a hope for a plan so how could he be so stupid to get rid of the thing we have even even if it has problems how could he be such a bad leader that he would get rid of it without having anything to replace it that my that my friends is an illegitimate story that is complete fake news because there is no world in which the president would get rid of the thing we have without having

[47:22]

rid of the thing we have without having something to replace it there is the that's not going to happen even if Obamacare gets thrown out the government is still not completely incapable they're gonna say ok the court has over over ruled it but we don't yet have a replacement until we have a replacement we'll just keep going the way we're going you know there might be some tweaks to it or something but basically basically the the entire government of the United States didn't all become you know blithering morons there's nobody there's not you couldn't find one person probably in the government who would say oh yeah just just drop this Obamacare like a rock it doesn't matter if we have anything to replace it we'll just get rid of it nobody thinks that and the news the anti-trump news is reporting every day oh what an idiot this requires the dáil treatment he's so stupid

[48:22]

stupid he is going to cancel the Obama care health care and have no plan to replace it said all the dumb people all the smart people said of course he's gonna not do anything drastic until he can have a substitute of course we shouldn't even have that conversation because they're nobodies stupid there's nobody that stupid all right so I saw the story that they're a record number of young men who were not having sex so in polls apparently men are just I think 28% of men in their 20s are just not having sex and people speculate all right what's going on what's happening and I think the answer is it's a whole bunch of things so a whole bunch of things going on and it's all just list a

[49:24]

things going on and it's all just list a few one of the things going on is that people use almost I would say almost exclusively at this point dating apps for hookups if you're in your 20s you're using an app to find partners now it was recently reported I think like sort of it's tweeted this that if you're a woman and you can have any guy you want right let's say you're on tinder and you're a woman you know you can kind of have your pic right so what woman is picking an ugly guy none right there's no woman who's saying yeah I'm gonna get this ugly guy Wow does that happen so because women get to make the mating decisions meaning that men are largely ready to go and it's up to the women to say yeah I'll pick this one I'll pick this one why in the world would any woman on

[50:24]

why in the world would any woman on tinder pick somebody from the bottom 20% it just would never happen so the bottom 20% if they are relying not on personal contact so much but dating apps how in the world would they ever have sex the dating apps have completely eliminated their ability to find partners because the guys in the top 20% are getting all of the women so the guy in the top 20% is having sex five times this week with five different women because they're picking him they're like I don't like that guy right so that's one thing the other thing as the the story I read reported that more men are living at home and apparently and this is underreported I think there are more men living with their parents adult men than there are women so women are actually more successful at getting out of the house and I thought I thought

[51:27]

out of the house and I thought I thought I'm not sure I knew that do you know do you know that because I would say that that would be one of the one of the most important metrics of how the genders are doing it looks to me like if women are far more successful and apparently it's a big difference women are far more successful at getting out of the house and taking on a life of their own and it makes me think there might be no is there a more important metric than that is that a metric it feels like that's the main metric if you literally can't graduate from childhood to adulthood successfully nothing else is as important as that is it I mean except health and health is pretty similar so I would say that women at this point have a commanding advantage if you use that metric now I'd need to know more about why that is to understand that but it

[52:27]

why that is to understand that but it seems like a commanding advantage for women so women more women are going to college than men more women are leaving the house than men you know leaving the parents that's pretty good for what for a woman I got to say yeah I'm not going to get into the debate about salaries so but the other the other effects which I've talked about before is the quality of the porn and I you don't see anybody talk about this except me so probably for a good reason porn has existed for you know decades but in the past the poor was a sort of generic because you know people were all looking at sort of the same thing but now because there's so much that people can pick the exact kind of porn they want and the difference between the exact porn you want and just

[53:30]

between the exact porn you want and just pretty good porn it's probably pretty big right I'm going to think about it think about the best food you've ever had compared to the average of food right the average of food is sort of its food I liked it it's okay compare that to the best food you've ever had right so right now that's what we've done we've gone from poor and wizza it's pretty good I like this porn it's good stuff too oh my god this is the best thing I've ever seen in my life in theory having more of it and having it more searchable should create that situation the longtail where your very specific preference you can find under those conditions would a certain group of men even bother going out of the house maybe not because there's a crossover there's there's a crossover at some point the the digital version is just better for some number of people who cannot you

[54:32]

some number of people who cannot you know if you're not in the 20% of men who are getting all the women on tinder if you're in the bottom 20% what's the best time you can have on a Saturday night all right and I'm not saying this as an insult I'm not putting anybody down I'm just saying that the the trend of you know digital sex if you will it has done this it went from man this is pretty good stuff a lot of people like it to her totally available fairly fairly accepted in society now as compared to before so that's a big factor anyway there are a number of other factors soon let's talk about climate change I saw a tweet from Tony Heller famous climate skeptic and we asked if if I've sort of given up on chasing down the climate change truth - for those of you who are new to this my current stand is the same as my stand

[55:34]

current stand is the same as my stand has been for a while which is I don't believe a citizen a non-scientist can understand climate change well enough to have a real opinion an opinion that's not just ridiculous now you could be right but it would be by accident because you really can't tell if the skeptics or the scientist has the better argument and so I've been doing this deep dive for months and trying to find the one if I could find one metric or one measurement or one fact or or one thing that you could say all right if this is true and we prove it's true then we're really in trouble with climate change or likewise if we prove it's not true whatever this one hypothetical fact is if we could say this is not true there's not much trouble right not much risk so so I've been looking for that thing and the most recent update is that I saw somebody who was a climate skeptic

[56:35]

I saw somebody who was a climate skeptic say the following and I put this out here for people to comment on that there are 31 or so major climate models that belong to I think 31 countries so every country seems to favor a certain model they're a little bit different yeah but I think 30 of them roughly speaking somebody says over 70 but they're probably 30 or so that are the important ones but the point is that almost all of them are similar or at least they're in the same zone right there's a lot of a lot of variation in zone but the zone was all up so it wouldn't matter which of them was right they all show a story of my god were a lot of trouble so I believe all climate scientists would agree with what I've said so far that there are lots of different models that that they all show danger so it doesn't matter which ones right they all show danger except and

[57:36]

right they all show danger except and here's the fun the Russian model so the the fact that I've asked to be checked is is it true that the only model that has actually hind - casted right meaning it fits the past as all the models do so all the models that you see fit the past but there's only one that fits the past and it's the end that's the important part has also fit recent measurements so there so the the the the claim which I'm I'm asking people to fact-check is is it true that the Russian model is the only one that's worked and if that's true if that claim is true is it also true that the Russian model the only one that works also shows there's no big risk from climate change because it's way out of the range of the other ones so I put that out there and if it had been like

[58:37]

that out there and if it had been like every other claim that the sceptics make it would have been debunked immediately in fact there are there are two twitter users that are very active in my feed they copy me on all the climate stuff and I'm watching them slap down the skeptics you know like a bad movie yeah it's sort of like watching either one of them work on Twitter is like watching a an old kung fu movie you know where Bruce Lee is is killing hundreds of people in fact and and but even though it's a hundred to one you know Bruce Lee is still winning every fight well for the vast majority of the skeptical claims I'm watching the two Bruce Lee's slapped down all the skeptics so hard there's it's almost hard to watch I mean it's sort of a bloodbath so there are two Bruce Lee's who know enough about climate they're not even scientists

[59:37]

climate they're not even scientists neither / scientists all they do is they take the scientists argument and they just match it with a skeptical claim and they say well I just debunked your claim with science and and they can explain it works etc but there's one claim about the Russian model I put out there to total silence total silence now it could be that somebody has answered it and I haven't noticed it so if there's anybody out there who's seen a response to the Russian model fact jack it was somebody who would say it's not true can you tweet it to me so my and might my stand on all this the climate stuff is going to be the same it's going to be that it is never settled in my mind so science can be settled ish and I know you'll all come in and say science can

[1:00:37]

you'll all come in and say science can never be settled by the way there's nothing that bothers me more about the whole climate situation then people claim it explaining to each other things they already knew do you see this phenomenon how many times has somebody said on Twitter but science can never be settled ok who did you think didn't who did you think doesn't know that even when scientists say it's settled a hundred percent of the world knows that it could still change if they had new information because that sounds science works we don't need to keep explaining of the same thing to each other because we all know that there's nobody who doesn't know that no matter how certain science is if they get new information it could change nobody doesn't know that stop explaining it to me please

[1:01:39]

stop explaining it to me please the other thing the people that seem to claim is plain to me as they say science is not consensus that's not how it works the 97% of Sciences it does not work by consensus who are you telling that to is there anybody in the world who believes the science works on census nobody believes that you're arguing against some imaginary person literally nobody believes the science is consensus they do believe that on the persuasion front that it means something that most of the scientists are on the same side but they're taking it as persuasion yes it is persuasive that all the scientists or so many of the scientists seem to be on the same side that's persuasive but nobody says that's science it's just being persuaded by numbers all right

[1:02:42]

numbers all right so here's where it stands I've made two fact challenges to climate scientists and so far they have let me down which means that the current winning argument is skepticism the current winning argument and climate are the people who say it's not a problem that doesn't mean they're right got to be very careful here I'm not saying they're right I'm saying that argument wise they have they have the high ground now until somebody can debunk either the Russian model being the accurate one or they can debunk my second challenge which is that the the so-called unprecedented rise in temperatures is matched with an identical curve earlier in this century when when there wasn't as much going on in terms of co2 there was less co2 but we had the same thing now I've heard the arguments for that or something like

[1:03:42]

arguments for that or something like well Herick volcanoes and pollution but honestly those are such weak arguments that it just puts into question the entire theory frankly so those are my two challenges that the stronger one is the Russian model one and I haven't heard a response so I'm not saying that these are true statements that the Russian model is the only one that's accurate and it says there's not much warming problem I had I don't know that that's true but it is the winning argument until somebody knocks it off the top spot so the skeptics have the top spot and so Tony Heller to answer your question on Twitter I have not to drop the drop the trail and your team is solidly in the lead until you get knocked off if somebody knocks off that belief then I changed my mind like that all right anything else going on I see a number of

[1:04:49]

anything else going on I see a number of people are signing up to be guests let's see who's on here doo doo doo let me write a guest hold on and see if I can keep my sound working I do this you'll tell me if I've changed just changed microphones all right I'm gonna invite Perry just for for no reason now let's see if this works Perry are you there Barry hey how's it going did you have a question yeah so first a comment which is thanks for having this little chat at the end like the sweet spot every time because I've heard you be a little bit self-conscious about it like maybe this is a waste of time but this is the reason why I

[1:05:50]

time but this is the reason why I started paying attention to you honestly so the climate question would be what happened to your sort of line of thought where you were pointing to trust the experts broadly where you were kind of hinting to Trump you're like you're hinting at maybe Trump should translate the trust the experts from the wall to climate then trust the experts you know from the wall to nuclear and kind of I saw you growing a good circle like a complete circle there are you still on that line of thought or well I I might have to answer offline if if we have a baby crying problem you can let me ask her offline so it's a good question when do you trust the experts I'll give you a rule trust the experts when the situation is simple and don't trust the experts when the

[1:06:53]

and don't trust the experts when the situation is complicated and the experts are have a financial incentive so that's a pretty good rule now if you take a look at the experts talking about border security I would say border security is a relatively simple thing does a wall work does it not work where do we put a border gate that sort of thing so an expert on border security probably pretty reliable probably pretty reliable an expert on let's say telling you how to invest investing is terribly complicated there's so many companies involved if an expert tells you that they can pick stocks for you better than than random chance don't trust them because it's a big complicated field finances and everybody involved who's the professionals they have a financial incentive that's their own financial incentive it's not your financial incentives all right

[1:07:54]

incentives all right so in finance you generally don't want to trust the experts except for the experts we're telling you you know that this is a better investment than this generally such as if they tell you that index funds stock index funds are better than picking stocks this sort of a high-level Jin general advice you can you can trust that but if the expert says buy stock and Enron as my expert once did and I did invest in Enron don't trust that if your expert says very detailed I think you should put your money into WorldCom a company that went out of business don't do what I did and say well you're the expert I guess I'll put some money in the world column because that didn't work out they went out of business all right but if they say put it in an index fund and just leave it there that's pretty good advice now let's think that the climate is climate more like border security

[1:08:54]

is climate more like border security where it's a simple situation and and the Border Patrol people the experts don't really have a financial interest per se they want to get the job done you know they don't there's no I don't think any of the border security people make money if if the government builds a wall right so no financial interest climate is a lot more like the financial example where it's a big complicated thing and you as a citizen cannot determine who's right who's wrong and there's gigantic money influences in it if you ever put those two situations together you should not trust the experts automatically now I'm gonna add automatically because sometimes the experts are right and in the case of climate if the experts are right the majority of them the climate scientists well then you're doomed so this is one that you gotta take a little more seriously and dig into it a little

[1:09:56]

more seriously and dig into it a little bit more and see if you can figure it out because the fate of civilization is in the balance maybe so that's exactly why I'm doing a deep dive to answer that question can we trust the experts I mean in a sense I'm doing a fact check on the experts and because I can't understand the experts complete you know domain of expertise enough to say well you got that right about those tree rings I mean how would I know but I can't ask them about specific claims and say is this true or not so if it's true or not true that the Russian model is the accurate one that would tell us something we wouldn't need to be experts ourselves to look at that and say um you can't explain why the only model that works is the only one that you're ignoring is that true because if it is true the whole the whole thing is blown apart and if it's not true it's just one more time that

[1:10:57]

not true it's just one more time that the skeptics were wrong so it makes a difference all right let me take another caller here and you can ask me anything you want I'm gonna pick people who have some kind of a profile picture so that will be my preference here all right my guests are you their guests hi and do you have a question for me it's another climate sort question if that's all right sure anything well I've been thinking lately and keeping up with your whole adventure in this and it kind of occurred to me a couple days ago when you could shoot me down here if you like but it kind of occurred me there's only one way forward and the debate may not matter that much because on one extreme you do nothing and you have the risk of climate change being a real problem and also roughly half the planet believe that it is a huge problem anyway excuse

[1:11:59]

that it is a huge problem anyway excuse me so they're going to be upset the other extreme is like the green New Deal destroy the economy like we have to solve it now so no other one seems to work excuse me I'm getting a cold but the other way would be the center where we keep the economy intact and just have a societal consciousness that we're going to keep going towards greener energies and that needs to be the only way forward and then in that case the debate of right or wrong may be the wrong way to frame it yeah you're not too far from the Bill Gates approach which is to develop safe nuclear technology because that would be the right answer no matter what's happening with climate change and you would do it as fast as you could no matter what's happening with climate change I mean you would do it just to get rid of normal pollution the thing that that I think is always under under mentioned I guess what is that we

[1:13:00]

under mentioned I guess what is that we we talk about India and China creating most of the co2 most of the pollution yes and we say well that's you know why you should why should we do something when they're not doing something because you know whatever we do wouldn't make a difference enough of a difference anyway but here's here's the interesting thing if you fast forward the pollution in China is actually so bad that it would destabilize the regime yeah so China China India for their own domestic stability are getting closer and closer to the point where they're gonna have to treat it as their top priority mm-hmm so we don't have to I don't think we have to worry that either China or India will get more polluted forever until the world ends because for their own purposes having nothing to do with the rest of the world if the people can't breathe walking down the street which is literally you know the other worry masks and stuff now if they can't fix that I

[1:14:01]

and stuff now if they can't fix that I don't know if the regime is gonna be stable and and you know well I was just gonna say that seems to kind of speak to my point because it seems like they're operating on my first extreme that I mentioned which is like doing nothing and they're kind of proving that it's unsustainable well well no I let me let me
me fact-check you on that my understanding is that China is going harder on developing nuclear technology than maybe any other country that maybe that's not true but I did recently hear that some development is happening over there for nuclear and that is their only solution so probably they're already working hard well it's again nuclear because there's no other path yeah but I'm also instruct with how I've never heard that before today China I only get the image of people being unable to breathe in Beijing I had no idea that they were actually trying to advance nuclear well it's it's brand-new news so I think the news was only a week ago yeah yeah they

[1:15:05]

news was only a week ago yeah yeah they had to do with the the new type of reactors the generation four so thank you for your question right ticker alright let's take one more or maybe maybe more so we need let's get Colleen on here Colleen Colleen can you hear me I plug for you is that your book How to Lose it almost everything and still win is very popular in our house and sharing an extended family so thanks thank you very much I'm calling about your comments regarding Russia and the the fact that they the non fact that they quote meddled and I wanted to ask you about the fact that you know we've all been talking and rolling our eyes about CNN and MSNBC but don't you think it's more dangerous the lives that Fox and rather well they are

[1:16:08]

lives that Fox and rather well they are lies because they have kept the entire narrative as this demonization of Russia when there are there's no evidence that Russia meddled and they've known you know least ran has been reporting for two years Ukraine colluded and they are even convictions but Fox kept that from us and their primary audience is President Trump and his base and I feel like everybody needs to know that that is absolutely more dangerous of of media because they're targeting the base and so everybody just is assuming Russia nettled when there's a reason behind these lives even from our well but there but it is true that Russia did the troll farm stuff you agree with that right that doesn't mean it was the Russian government right it does not but you you agree that the troll farm stuff happened all agree that there were some ads out there with those yeah yeah I you know I

[1:17:11]

there with those yeah yeah I you know I don't hear I don't hear Fox News hitting the the Russia thing too hard but they do report it as there was real Russian interference which is almost certainly true but I think you have to put it in context of how a trivial it was at least the parts that they that we know about but also that our allies do the same thing there's no way that Russia interfered more than Great Britain I mean the UK and Ukraine was what really did impact our elections mana Ford was fired because of a fake dirt given to Alexandre chalupa from Les chinko in the Ukraine I mean that beyond what anything that Trump was ever accused of and for two years Fox knew that and and did not they needed to still push the anti-russia thing so it's hard for me to comment on this because I

[1:18:11]

hard for me to comment on this because I don't know the facts of the the Ukraine stuff but I will I will take your comment I will accept your opinion that the the Ukraine stuff was underreported that might be true I I just I can't I can't add much to the conversation because I don't know the the factual background but that thank you for calling Thanks all right all right I'm gonna end here and I will talk to you Oh before I go let me tell you again that my my drum instructor is now on the interface by one hub app so if you want to take drums you might look him up his name is Michael look for search for drums then look for Michael you'll find my drum instructor and you can schedule some time with them and I hope you do and I will talk to you later