Episode 477 Scott Adams: China Trade Deal, GND, Apology Tours, String Theory, Boycotts, Healthcare

Date: 2019-04-02 | Duration: 1:21:46

Topics

China agrees to outlaw Fentanyl, death penalty for the guilty American press business model almost destroyed America Their business model profits from driving people apart Press taking another run at destroying the world, climate change Why is the press ignoring Gen IV nuclear development President Trump might embrace Gen IV Senator Lamar Alexander “Manhattan Project for Clean Energy” Tucker says GND is really just a centralized power grab Where’s the connective tissue proving this is their intention? Huge claim with NO evidence to support it “Slaughter Meter”, election results if election was held today Meter has dropped from pegged to only 50% today Healthcare is the hardest topic, and there’s no real movement Nobody fully understands the healthcare
Democrat proposal for simple solution healthcare Governmental competitive healthcare plan Don Lemon hilariously complaining about to much Dem apologizing Apologizing makes you weak…and Trump doesn’t do it? Demanding apologies for even the smallest of infractions Lupita Nyong’o is apologizing effectively, acceptably We should stop judging people by their mistakes We should judge based on their response to mistake George Clooney wants boycott of hotels owned by Sultan for Sharia law Bill Maher argues against boycotts Boycotts are like a virus, everyone becomes infected, affected Spam Killing apps for your phone works…try one NO evidence of Trump misdeeds in Mueller report? Evidence, confirmation bias, coincidence…all look the same Odds of something, anything substantial
Duke University FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC STUDY RESULTS Fine was over $100 million dollars Do scientists routinely fake scientific results…for grant money? Duke scientists committed criminal fraud…repeatedly? Gravity might be an illusion per results of scientific experiments Competing Hypothesis for The Theory of Everything Sim theory hypothesis for an expanding universe Greatly simplifies the programming code required

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

[0:10]

hey everybody sing along with me pom pom pom pom come on in there's still lots of space up front for those who you want to be in the front row come on in no talking among yourselves take a seat good to see you hey there Tyler always good to see you Tyler and Pete Beth come on in you know what time it is I think you do I think you do it's time for coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip grab your cup your mug your glass your stein your tankard your chalice your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the simultaneous in some of the best simultaneous sipping I've had all day good stuff well once again the news is full of fun stuff do you remember when they used to say if it bleeds it leads

[1:12]

they used to say if it bleeds it leads and the idea was that the news would only report bad news and violence and it was all violence and bad news when did that stop when did the news stop reporting on violence no I know that of course they'll report on some big tragedy so if there's a big tragedy of course that will be the headline what is it my imagination or have there been fewer big tragedies lately or is the news just now covering it anymore because I'm looking at all the headlines and it's all just fun stuff well it's not fun for everybody involved right in each of these stories there's something like a victim but it's not the big blood and death stories that we're used to let me give you a sample of some of the headlines now this one is funny but not funny all right so for the purposes of the story if you

[2:15]

so for the purposes of the story if you look at the whole story it's not funny at all and you should find no humor in this but half of the story is kind of funny and I can't apologize for that I don't I don't make the rules and it's the story that David Blaine famous magician has been accused by two women of something like hypnotizing them and sexually abusing them now I've read the accusations and I can't say that they sound too credible but I agree with the the general ethic of the times that women must be taken seriously so their story must be heard so what will we're probably all on the same page there but there's something about these stories that are different from other stories because if you claim that you've been hypnotized in one case and in the other

[3:17]

hypnotized in one case and in the other case she doesn't have memory of the event except some details after when she woke up in the morning and here's the question that I asked you so apparently the New York Police Department is is investigating David Blaine and I have to ask this question what are the odds that a world-famous magician and apparently might know something about persuasion as well what are the odds that a person with that skill set could be convicted of a crime like this so you know I'm not suggesting that he's guilty of any crimes innocent until proven guilty but one of the odds that he could be convicted now if he had an eyewitness or a videotape that I'd say yeah anybody can be convicted if you have a video of the actual crime it doesn't matter how

[4:19]

the actual crime it doesn't matter how much skill you have but in the case where as he said she said and one of the SEDs is a famous magician what are the odds that that person could not get off even if he was guilty probably very low my guess is that that skill set would translate very well into the the legal realm so when you hear that a famous mute magician is on trial you don't need to listen to the details of the case because it's probably gonna be not guilty anyway that's the interesting part of that story many people have tweeted to me the news that China has announced that they're gonna get tough on fentanyl coming out of China which as you know almost all of the fentanyl that makes it to the United States through Mexico originates in

[5:20]

States through Mexico originates in China and trying to add laws that did not make it illegal to produce let's say things that are like fentanyl but you know molecule different so the criminals were using that legal loophole in China to say well it's not exactly fentanyl I changed this molecule in some some unimportant way but China has committed that May first they will criminalize fentanyl in all its forms even the slight variations and make it a capital offense which means the death penalty now I see a lot of people giving me credit for that I don't know how you can measure anybody's influence I don't know what would have happened anyway because I was really you know I was persuading toward this outcome and I was doing it quite

[6:20]

outcome and I was doing it quite noticeably and publicly and continuously but it's also the smart outcome so I'm not going to take credit for people that I don't even know doing smarter things all right you know that I love I'd love to say I had something to do with it but the fact is you should never assume that if somebody you never met or well actually in this case I have met President Trump but if it's somebody you're not dealing with at a regular basis and they simply do something that makes sense and smart you can't say that it's because somebody recommended it you know if somebody's just acting smart so I'm going to give Trump the the win on this and but I will do it with this caveat which is that I don't yet believe it so I don't think China is a credible enough player that we should take this as real news yet it

[7:24]

we should take this as real news yet it could become real news but so far I would say that until I see a picture of a fentanyl dealer the in his mug shot the day before China executes them I'm not going to believe it so I'm happy that it looks like progress but I'm only gonna say it looks like progress so far there is not progress we have the appearance of something that could become progress so it's all good but I don't believe it yet and some people are asking does this mean that we're close to a trade deal with China to which I say I'm a little bit confused why China would agree to do this when it's clearly a bargaining trip so if they were trying to make this part of some larger trade deal I would think that they would I would think that they would wait and

[8:26]

would think that they would wait and make it part of a larger package if they had the ability to do that but you know I had been saying publicly and often on Twitter anyway that we should not do any trade deal with China as long as they were letting the fentanyl trade go unchecked so I didn't care what the other stuff was about I didn't care how good a deal we had about that I said if you can't get this done you're not you're not dealing with the you're just not dealing with a credible player you should not make any deal with somebody who can't do the simplest thing so it's possible that Trump did some version of what I would have done and what I would have done is said we'll get serious about all this other stuff after you're done with this you take care of this and you're now part of the credible conversation if you don't you're our enemy and we don't make deals with

[9:27]

enemy and we don't make deals with enemies I mean not trade deals so it's possible that Trump played this exactly right which is this one China has to be free you can't put this with the rest of the trade deal you got to give us this or we're not even gonna talk to you so it might have been a precondition I have no reason to believe it was but that's the way I would have played it as you know because I tweeted it many times so maybe something good is coming let's talk about something else I'm looking at the persuasion from the Democrats and from Trump primarily and I'm comparing them which of these two slogans for 2020 sounds stronger to you slogan number one this would be president Trump's make America great again pretty good right sounds pretty good now let's compare that to the Democrats

[10:29]

let's compare that to the Democrats slogan you're all going to be dead in 12 years that's not as good you're all going to be dead in 12 years now they don't actually say you're gonna be dead in 12 years that's the way the that's way it's reported by the right so the the press on the right is doing two aoc what the press on the left does to trump all the time they they just changed the meaning their forwards until sounds ridiculous and what she said was that if we don't get super serious about cutting it over the next 12 years were dead in the long run in other words will be some uncontrollable problem that could be true and it could be untrue but the way it's reported is just fake news that she's saying we're gonna be dead in 12 years what she's saying is that if we don't do something in 12 years it's a it's a potentially mortal risk of a large-sized but it

[11:30]

mortal risk of a large-sized but it really does kind of come down to that make America great again or you're all dead in 12 years that's theirs I've got a feeling that make America great against a little bit more motivating we saw that the press in the United States because of their their the business model that they've evolved to recently in which the controversy and the two sides and you know how can I get you worked up and make you click on things that being the new business model almost destroyed the United States let me say this again and and I have no there's no hesitation there's no hedging on what I'm saying the press collectively almost destroyed the United States with the Russian collusion thing and with driving driving

[12:31]

collusion thing and with driving driving the country apart on a number of things they failed so in a way you're seeing this this gigantic historical like meta battle and and it's being reported as it's like you know the Republicans against the Democrats that's not what's happening that's not the real story the real story is not the Republicans versus the Democrats the big battle that we're seeing the larger battle is the founders of the United States the authors of the Constitution versus the modern version of the press the press is trying and I say not with intention it's you know nobody in the press is trying to destroy the country it is just the collective effect of having a business model built on driving people apart so the press is fighting to destroy the the

[13:33]

the press is fighting to destroy the the system that was developed but maybe this some of the smartest you know people that the United States has ever had which are the founders and the brilliance of the Constitution who won I'll tell you the one I'll tell you one Thomas Jefferson James Madison the other founders the other people who authored the Constitution the press fought the dead founders for two and a half years and the dead founders won yeah happened yes for guy Hamilton the founders won again so the founders have this what two hundred and forty year winning streak yeah Washington sure I'm not sure how much Washington had to do with the document itself but we give him credit so the press lost but the press

[14:34]

credit so the press lost but the press is taking another run at destroying the world with climate change let me say it again the press is taking another run at destroying the whole world through the topic of climate change now I'm not the one who's gonna say oh they're all alarmist and the way they're reporting it is all wrong and therefore people will do all the wrong things because because they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist those of you have been watching me for a while know that my opinion on climate change risk is that I as a citizen can't determine it I don't believe the scientists I don't believe the press and when I dig into it myself as I have been doing for months you hit a wall as a non-scientist and you just run into counterclaims that you can't judge skeptic says this climate scientist says this I can't tell I'm not a scientist

[15:37]

this I can't tell I'm not a scientist and I haven't looked into those topics can't tell so I'm not saying that the press is wrong I'm saying that I have no idea if they're right or wrong but here's why the press is trying to destroy the world and I mean this literally actually destroying the world not not hyperbole I mean literally just destroying the planet and it's by ignoring generation four nuclear power as the obvious solution to climate change now whether climate change is real or whether it's not real generation four nuclear development is the answer for both of those situations how much reporting are you seeing on that today I see lots of articles about the green New Deal I see no mention of nuclear energy that is the press destroying the planet that

[16:40]

is the press destroying the planet that is exactly what that is now again it's not they're making they're not sitting in a room and saying hey let's destroy the planet nobody's doing this in any conscious way it's the collective effect of the press and here's why it's kind of obvious when you think about it on the left if they if the left media suddenly said okay we still think President Trump is a for not believing the scientists about climate change we'll hold on to that thought because we need that for our mental sanity you know I don't think that's a good description of what's happening but this says left needs that still they have a solution that's the obvious solution and there there's no how and the money and the you know and we can get this done but they won't report on it because if they report that President Trump can solves the problem that they think is the biggest problem in the

[17:40]

think is the biggest problem in the world and that here's the Bart he is uniquely suited to solve it that's the part that hurts what is preventing the efficient development of safe nuclear power the generate for those of you don't know the generation four designs their meltdown proof so you don't have the risk of meltdown because they're designed so they can't and they also will eat nuclear waste from other older sites so it reduces nuclear waste and heats it and it can't blow up and meltdown but they need to iterate through some designs to get the best design within that class of things president Trump is the the rule breaker or not rule breaker he's a rule breaker tip but he cuts he cuts regulations it is the regulations that prevent the country from doing these things so now we've seen a few few things going on

[18:41]

we've seen a few few things going on we've seen Alexander Lamar Republican suggesting a green nuclear a Manhattan deal he should be calling it the green nuclear deal that would have been better branding using Mark Snyder's ashtec but he's going with Manhattan Project which is okay gets attention so that that's one thing that's happening on the Republican side do you see all the news about that today you don't what's the most important thing in the news it's that it's that nuclear energy is actually a legitimate practical solution and here's the important part the only one there is not a second choice there is no second choice about how to deal with climate change there's only ridiculous you know hope and prayers and stuff like well maybe we'll get this solar stuff going you know maybe if you stop using the

[19:42]

know maybe if you stop using the airplane or you know I think that's an exaggeration but but sort of just good feelings and hope and I don't know but the nuclear power could actually solve this problem if it's a problem and if it's not you still want to do it because it's so good for the economy it frees us from dependence on other people it's good for the environment it's just good in a whole bunch of ways so the fact and then there was also secretary Perry's project their funding that developed the rapid development of new types of nuclear fuels which gets to this generation four thing and there was one other nuclear project that the administration is doing that that has the same quality it's focusing the country on this option now
given what we've seen about how depressed the Democrats were when Trump

[20:43]

depressed the Democrats were when Trump won and that literally it literally literally triggered people into mental health problems and I mean that actually literally and then we saw that the Russian occlusion thing collapsed which was the only mental solace that they were getting it's like well at least at least we know it wasn't because he got elected fairly but that it turns out yeah the election the collusion thing fell apart all they have now is climate change and health care so they have two things climate change and health care but climate change is the bigger one because that's the one that kills us all according to you know the worst case scenario health care is a financial problem you know people are still going to get the health care they just can't afford it but they're gonna get it so I would say that the climate change is the last hope for the people who keep retreating to little safe spaces for

[21:44]

retreating to little safe spaces for their mind they can still believe that they've been right all along because this evil orange president will not solve the biggest problem to the globe which is climate change in their opinion but what if he did what if he did what if Trump was the savior of the planet in terms of climate change risk I got bad news for the left it looks like he might be now he hasn't fully embraced this and all it would take is the President to tweet something about generation four nuclear as a solution to you know all kinds of things maybe he can't do it because it would be acknowledging the climate change is not a hoax so maybe he has some you know and maybe he's not up to speed on the fact that you know Bill Gates and all the smart people are saying this is the way to go and so I here's my here's my

[22:49]

to go and so I here's my here's my statement that kind of wraps us all up if the press continues to ignore the obvious solution which would get the Congress on board because if the press starts reporting about generation for nuclear the public is going to get on board if the public gets on board Congress will follow because there's nobody on the other side of the issue there is nobody who learns about generation for nuclear power who doesn't approve of it you won't meet that person it's the one thing in the world in which everybody agrees now somebody says why does FoxNews not mention nuclear same problem well it may be a different problem in the case of Fox News it's probably more lack of could be lack of knowledge could be they're not up to speed and I'm talking about the hosts primarily there may be some other factor

[23:52]

primarily there may be some other factor that I'm not aware of but I could but let me let me lump FoxNews into the same category they are failing the country on this topic in a fatal way they're failing the country in a potentially fatal way this is one of the biggest risks we've ever had and when I say it's fatal I mean in two different ways if climate change is the problem that we think it is is fatal because do CNN and everybody else is ignoring the obvious solution that would be fatal because if the press doesn't report it the public doesn't know it and they can't influence Congress to do the things that need to be done and that are fairly straightforward it's not a lot of there's not a lot of mystery about what to do and then let's go the other way let's say the Democrats take power let's say that they go hard at the green new deal and it bankrupts the country it's

[24:54]

deal and it bankrupts the country it's catastrophic well you're hundreds and millions of people could die just by degrading the economy substantially because that's what poverty does it kills people so if you think about the risk the biggest risk of the world what would you say it is you'd probably say yourself ah the biggest risk to the world some people would say climate change some people would say nuclear war some people would say this was that but it might be the business model of the press the press no longer has apparently I mean and the in this topic it's obvious that the press is not in the business of informing the public when you say wouldn't you say that that is a fair statement that the press both sides left and right don't have an interest in informing the public in the most productive ways it's just not it's just not a thing anymore it's

[25:56]

not it's just not a thing anymore it's nobody's job to do it so that's that is my problem now i was listening to tucker carlson last night he was talking about the green new deal tucker makes the following claim he says that the green new deal and i'm paraphrasing is really just a power grab and that that's what it's all about and that the point of the green new deal is to centralize power and that it's all about power to which i say what what I don't even understand that point I'm not gonna tell you what's wrong but there's no connecting tissue I'm saying all of you agree my god that's scary oh my god holy I can't believe I'm saying this many

[26:56]

I can't believe I'm saying this many people agree oh my god this is blowing me away I'm actually having a full body feeling I've got I've got chills right now oh my god this is scary you've all been hypnotized and and there's nothing I can do to talk you out of it right now I'll work on this over time but let me let me oh my god I'm actually my mind is boggled right now you know I've been talking to you for a long time about how people don't have independent opinions their opinions are assigned to them by the press and you know I know that I believe it I observe it all the time but to see it so starkly like with your comments you're all agreeing with a point which is very very important and

[27:59]

point which is very very important and completely disconnected from any reality it's completely in the signed opinion there's nobody here who could explain why that's happening in other words who is it who's grabbing power and why they want that none of you could explain that there's no connecting tissue between the thought that the green new deal is really all about a power grab now if you mean that it helps the Democrats get elected because they have a topic then yes I mean it's a political topic but there is no question in my mind that the public believes this is a real thing and a real risk the scientists who are working on climate change are not going to work every day and saying if I get this done I will successfully have given power from the people to a central source no nobody has that thought there is nobody

[29:01]

nobody has that thought there is nobody in this planet who in their mind is saying let's do this so we can consolidate power nobody there's nobody has ever made that claim it doesn't make sense and I just watched how many a hundred of you just say oh yeah that's a fact it's a fact because you heard it on TV that's the only reason you think that there's no logical connective tissue to that it's completely disavow from reality and it's I'm just gobsmacked there's so many of you bought it you don't often see you don't often see brain washing that stark or that or that immediate that is complete brainwashing if any of you can make an argument that there's a real person who's thinking to themselves oh this this climate change is gonna be great for me to get all the power you're

[30:03]

great for me to get all the power you're gonna have to find me a person and I've been having the same conversation on Twitter and the people who believe that it's a power grab they send me to means and both of them are a photo of some old person and on the photo of the old person will be a quote that seems to say that they're really all about grabbing power but if you look at the wording you can tell that it's a critic it's not somebody who says yeah we're gonna grab power which is sort of the way I think is being interpreted it's somebody accusing other people of the same thing that Tucker did which is hey you other people are all about grabbing power but there's no evidence there's no person who's ever said that's what they intend to do there's no there's no logic to make any of that work now if there's an argument for this I'm open to it right but you'd think that a claim this

[31:04]

but you'd think that a claim this important would always come with a little bit of explanation and not details but if you're gonna make a claim as as important as climate change is really about consolidating power that's a huge claim that's about as big a claim as you could make if you can't make that claim you should at least have a few words to say why you think that could be the person who's doing it has said so like show me a quote from the person who's actually trying to consolidate power show me an undercover video of somebody saying it show me the people specifically who would benefit there's none of that it's a completely groundless as far as I can tell absurd claim climate change is a whole bunch of people acting independently that's it I just described everything about climate change everything you need to know about climate change is that it's a whole

[32:05]

climate change is that it's a whole bunch of people pursuing their own self-interest and largely believing what they're doing the scientist believes that they're trying to find out the facts the politicians believe that they're trying to do what's good for the world which they also believe is going to be good for them politically so of course there's a political element to it maybe a little exaggeration but Wow it is shocking to see how completely many of you have been hypnotized on that point now in order to prove me wrong and let me say this I'll make this offer as as as good as I can let me do this I'm just gonna switch to guest Mobutu let me switch my microphone now and I'm gonna take somebody to explain to me this power grab idea and I want you to listen to the explanation and watch how it just turns into word salad okay so this will be a real-time demonstration all right

[33:05]

be a real-time demonstration all right so take it out the microphone
all right I'm looking for a guest who will make will connect the dots for me and make the case and I only want to see somebody who wants to make that case if you have another topic I'm going to cut you off so let's see somebody who can make that claim I'll look for somebody who's coming on new all right how about Darth cupcake so I'm thinking somebody who just signed on to be a guest because I think it's more likely that you were interested in that topic color can I hear you hey can you hear me I can hear you
you hey all right are you here good are you here to make the case that climate change is all about grabbing power yeah

[34:05]

change is all about grabbing power yeah I mean if nothing else I think it's so it's an unintended consequence or it it's a required consequence of just about any environmental policy up hold on hold on I'm going to end a conversation there because you are not making the case so you're making a case that it would be an unintended consequence but that's not that's not the claim the claim is it's an intended scheme so I'm so I'm gonna click off that guest and I want to I want to guest who can actually make a case that it's an intentional plot to gain power let's add new guests again I don't mean to be rude but I'm you know I just for the benefit of the audience here will keep things quick all right can you hear me in here your guests how are you hey I'm good can you do you have an argument that the climate change argument is really about gaining power so I'm not gonna pretend like I'm an expert there's a man on YouTube you may want to talk to

[35:07]

a man on YouTube you may want to talk to James Corbett but here's briefly point I want to make when Congress gave George Bush the ability to go to war with terrorists and their allies that Barack Obama would start seven new Wars right that's not all right hold on hold on caller are you going to make an argument for why there's an intentional power grab or are you gonna make an argument that it's an unintentional outcome dad it's there was an intention when the know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but people that believe it now they believe it and they're not trying to make a power grab they really believe what they're doing but if you look okay so you're all done so you're not making the argument all right I got to find somebody I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut you off and be rude but I'm really looking for somebody who'll make the argument and what you're finding what you're watching in real-time is nobody's making the argument that's that's gonna be my point so I'll take another caller and watch how watch how there were just hundreds

[36:07]

how watch how there were just hundreds of people who said oh yeah it's all about the power grab and and yet we can't find anybody to make the case all right color can hear me maybe because you're an ignorant piece of why don't you like get your head out of your ass so stupid like you think it's a power grab you think that our earth dying is all some like stupid scheme to get our do you not realize what's happening in the world like you're gonna be dead by 2050 so you won't even understand how the set the equator is gonna be unlivable our country is gonna be uninhabitable the green New Deal it's probably the best thing going right now right but the motives that keep it up I don't understand you you must you are spreading ignorance do you understand that there's some crusty old white man I will get rid of him so that collar didn't even know what topic he was in he was arguing about climate change which was in other words he was arguing against the point I was asking

[37:09]

arguing against the point I was asking people argue for so whoever that caller was if you believe that I'm a crusty old white man who was opposing the climate change you have not been paying attention because whatever I am I'm the opposite of that except for the crusty old white guy stuff all right so I wanted to you to hero crazy that was but he was crazy in the wrong way he was he was the other kind of crazy that let me find somebody now you're watching the experiment in real time so I'm gonna take Christine and Christine your job is to tell me the argument for why the climate change is all about grabbing power Christine are you there yes I am can you hear me I can can you tell me why the climate change topic is really all a secret way to grab power I believe that it is a way to undermine the Constitution of the United States cause anarchy and takeover a befuddled

[38:10]

anarchy and takeover a befuddled populace hold on hold on it causes here all right I got I got you that that would be that would be the point of it now connect it with some logic and facts who is it who has this plan specifically it has to be the anarchists in our country and I started with people like Saul Alinsky and that Weather Underground and followed through by Obama and Solyndra and all of these things that go to the economy so so I understand what the conspiracy theory is so the conspiracy theory is exactly what you just described so you described it well thank you for that now the next part is besides describing what it is give me some evidence that's real yeah in in the modern day so a 20-19 argument that there's some real person and who is that person and and and are they trying to get power who exactly is getting power people who no longer believe in

[39:12]

power people who no longer believe in the Constitution the electoral college and the founders I can't well in Turkey in Turkey in Turkey is the opposite of power right so the people who would like to destroy the system and create anarchy are the opposite of the claim the claim is that there's somebody who's trying to get power in Turkey is getting rid of all the power so is there a claim that there's some person or group who's trying to get the power isn't that power
in in the abstract yes because it's a power to destroy but that's not the claim all right so let's get something I'm gonna go to another color so that would be a different claim if there's a claim that Anarchy is the goal that's a different claim let's go to lavender Turkey but by the way did you note that when the angry guest came on to insult me that he wouldn't even listen like he wasn't even

[40:14]

wouldn't even listen like he wasn't even willing to listen to the other side I think that that's that that may be a consistent finding all right lavender Turkey are you there yes there's God what's up hey can you make the argument that climate change is really a scheme for grabbing power
are you going to make that argument or are you now I'm here for that I just I may have there was an audio problem there but make your argument that it's a power grab who's grabbing power okay exactly who is the beneficiary of this power grab well the beneficiary would be the democrat party obviously and and they gives them more power excuse me I had a

[41:17]

gives them more power excuse me I had a whole thing in my throat there it gives them because it furthers their agenda so so who so it would get them elected I think everybody agrees on that part there's it's part of a you know a campaign issue so that part I think everybody agrees on but take it to the next level where who are the specific people who are the the people who are going to get all the power who's that gonna be I don't think there's a like one specific person rubbing their hands together going you know he gonna have power you know I don't think all right so you're not make you look for somebody to make the argument all right so I could do this all day but I think you see what's happening right so everybody when I first said do you think this is a power grab you saw the comments it was yes yes yes yes this is definitely a paragraph and then I talked to what six people in a row and nobody could make the argument or even try to make the argument it was all just word salad did you notice that

[42:18]

all just word salad did you notice that now that's what I told you would happen before I did this live I told you that there would be no argument but we all believe that somebody else has won or something like that all right I'm done with that topic let me talk about something else I introduced the idea of the slaughter meter the slaughter meter is my prediction of what the 2020 Rhee presidential race would be if no variables changed from what they are today so if you just straight line the variables to the to the Election Day I did have it pegged at a hundred percent so until today the slaughter meter was at a hundred percent because it said that president would just slaughter whoever he ran against didn't even matter I have lowered the slaughter meter to 50% here's why all of the things that the president has done well are going to be baked into the cake by election 2020 in other words people will

[43:21]

election 2020 in other words people will stop worrying about Isis but they will also stop giving the president credit because it's going to be old news people will get used to the economy being good and they will stop thinking that Trump had anything to do with it people will you know and on and on right so what the things he's accomplished are gonna feel like you're taking them for granted the big issue seems to be health care and because health care will be the biggest issue along with climate change and the president has completely screwed the pooch on this topic his odds of slaughter are reduced by 50% now again plenty of stuff could change between now and election so that could go back up to 100% and could go to zero could be anything but at the moment I reduced the slaughter meter from 100 percent to 50 percent meaning it's a toss-up right now and so the president first said the president

[44:24]

the president first said the president first said oh we're working on the plan CNN is reporting that they can't find any life human being who's working on that plan now it might have been they plan to create a plan or something like that but now he said he's gonna push it off to 2020 he may or may not have people talking about it there are hundreds of different ideas floating around and frankly I would say that the president has completely failed on this topic he's failed persuasion wise he's failed politically and he's failed the citizens all right so for those of you who are pretty sure I never say anything bad about the president I've been hammering him on health care for a long time and he's that probably his lowest level of competence on that topic now putting it in context I would say it's the hardest topic because nobody else has solved it either so it's hard to say

[45:26]

has solved it either so it's hard to say that this president is like a special failure on this topic when nobody else has ever solved it either and nobody has a good plan that I've heard so if there's no plan from anybody it's hard to say that this one person doesn't have a plan so he's extra special bad but you can say for sure he's not solving it and I don't even think he's moving it forward frankly the administration is doing a number of things that are good such as making more competition for generics and things and if it's true that that Trump stopped prescription medication praised the prices for going up and he's made that claim I haven't heard anybody fact-check that I'd love to see the fact check on that because I don't know if that's true but they're at least doing the right things that should stop the prices from going up as fast as they were so I'll give him credit for the things he's done but the health care thing is just botched yeah there's just no way no nice

[46:27]

botched yeah there's just no way no nice way to say it it's just botched and we can't we can't just throw you can't just give the president some kind of automatic credit because he's on your team you get you got to call a sometimes you just got to call it the way it is Healthcare has been botched now again to be fair the Democrats have botched it the Republicans in Congress have botched it and the president is watching it it's all botched there's there's nobody to compliment here except here's interesting thing there's one um freshman Democrat who is recommending a let's see if I want to describe it right instead of Medicare for all in which the country would have one Medicare or one health care system he's proposing that people could buy him to Medicare optionally so you'd still have all of your private plans but people could buy into the government plan to compete against the private plans and then you'd

[47:27]

against the private plans and then you'd have a good competition and that that's somehow in lower prices I don't know if that's true don't know if that's true I'd love to hear smart people debate that but here's what I did like about it it's simple it's incremental it's easy to test you could test it right at a relatively modest price you could test it you could test it in one state for example let's say one state pick a small state pick for a month and say let's just try this in Vermont I'm just randomly picking a state as tested in this one state for one year see if prices go down in that state I don't know if that works that way maybe prices are all the same nationally so that doesn't work but the point is if you could test it go ahead and do it it would be the smallest change it completely keeps intact the entire private competitive situation but it gives people some place to go if they

[48:28]

gives people some place to go if they need cheaper health care and maybe that would so I'd love to see that idea debated because here's here's the problem with the health care discussion as soon as you start you realize that the conversation is so complicated and so big that none of the people talking about it understand it let me say that again there's nobody who talks about health care who even understands it past the surface it's just too big and complicated I've dug into it just a little bit just to find enough to know that there's no such thing as a member of Congress who's got a good handle on health care that there's there's nobody's even close so if you've got a big complicated thing that you can't you can't do a magic bullet and get in there and say oh if we just go in there and change this variable this all starts working again there's nothing like that this is big unwieldy you know that you got lobbyists and health care and you've

[49:30]

got lobbyists and health care and you've got rules and regulations and you've got you know millions of people who have to be satisfied you know administratively it's just impossible so this one freshman Democrat in his name I can't remember I guess I should give it more credit comes up with the first simple idea and it sounds simple at least compared to all the other ideas you know everything's more complicated than you think but yeah it's confused all it's a confuse awfully somebody says that's right so the prices are high because the public and the government can't tell what's going on as long as the public and the government can't tell what's going on it's too confusing then the prices will always stay too high so this this one plan of creating a government competition to the private industry feels like you should at least give it a try you know or at least I'd like to see that a public argument you know let's just talk about that thing maybe maybe

[50:31]

just talk about that thing maybe maybe just see if that thing's enough all right so the president is completely failing us on health care and there's I I can't I can't soften that there's no way to soften that that's complete failure let's talk about something else I tweeted around a clip of Don Lemon on his show complaining about the Democrats apologizing too much if you haven't watched this video go to my Twitter feed and you'll see it it's near the top it's hilarious from from front to end and it's hilarious not intentionally but watching Don Lemon make the argument that Democrats are apologizing too much and President trumpet doesn't apologize and therefore Trump will probably win because the not apologizing is a stronger look than apologizing all the time and he played a compilation clips

[51:32]

time and he played a compilation clips of all the of a number of the other candidates apologizing for things from Beto to Elizabeth Warren - I don't know who else was apologize Bernie was apologizing Biden was apologizing and and to watch Don Lemon completely come over to the Trump supporter point of view is astonishing and entertaining now he would never say that's what he did you know if he asked him hey did you come over to the Republican point of view I don't think he'd agree with that the way that I'm characterizing it but I'm still gonna characterize it that way cuz that's how it looks to me so if he's saying that apologizing makes you weak and he's also saying Trump doesn't do it and he's the way he's presenting it is that it's it's an advantage politically I'm gonna say he came over to the Republican point of view on this because Republicans have always been saying if

[52:34]

Republicans have always been saying if you let me put this in more context so when the Democrats had you know their one candidate against Trump or the Democrats had no candidates against Trump it was just Democrats in general against Trump and against Republicans they could insist forever on apologies so it was a non-stop apology insistence hey you Republican you said this apologize father eyes apologize for this Trump you have to apologize apologize and I guess they were getting their apologies but the problem with that strategy is that it was always destined to come back and cannibalize their own party and now you're watching 16 Democrats in a situation where they've created a brand that says they have to apologize for stuff what is the press going to do what is social media are going to do when you've created a situation where you've agreed that you must apologize for even the smallest transgression it becomes the

[53:36]

smallest transgression it becomes the only news there won't be any other news the entire news business will now coalesce around making people apologize so you think the Democrats are done apologizing oh they haven't even started because wait wait oh the election starts and it starts getting more brutal I mean it's sort of started but wait like it's going it will be non-stop demanding of apologies and it will just it will just make them look like I know a bowl of stale milk but speaking of apologies there's an interesting story about the the main actress for the movie up which I guess is doing great box office business as maybe the best horror movie first week of all time or something really it was a really big deal so I understand the movie is great for horror movies and the the main actress whose name I hope I'm pronouncing right is Lupita Nyong'o that's probably close

[54:37]

Lupita Nyong'o that's probably close Lapita Liang yung go and she got in trouble for saying that she she came up with the voice that she used in the movie the scary sounding voice after listening to Robert F Kennedy jr. I guess who has she says spasmodic dysphonia now then the people who have that actual condition spasmodic dysphonia it's a vocal chord problem they complained because she was just using their condition as you know a way to make some entertainment in a movie now the first part of it is it wasn't the only thing she looked at it was sort of a composite and you know that sort of informed her choice but she is apologized so she apologized for using a medical condition and just sort of taking it and using it in an entertainment fashion now what's weird about this story is those of you

[55:39]

weird about this story is those of you who have followed me for a while is that I had that condition meaning that for three and a half years I was unable to speak in a way that people could understand I could make noise but people didn't know what I was saying because I had that condition spasmodic dysphonia now I had I found a surgeon who found a technique for curing it and so as you can tell I can speak now so I was one of the first people in the world to get cured of that condition a lot of people don't know that it has a medical cure so they still have it etc but she apologized and I retweeted her apology and first of all it was a good apology because she explained why she you know she gave some context she apologized there was no hedging and it seemed sincere so from my perspective this is one of the few times I've actually been in a group that was the offended group I never get to be in the

[56:40]

offended group I never get to be in the offended group because unless you're you know if you're not gay or black or or you know some group that is more typically offended you don't you don't get to demand too many apologies because you're just not in that group so here it was this rare situation where I was in the allegedly offended group now somebody says were you offended no no not even a little bit I was not even you know a quarter of 1% offended in fact I wouldn't even even known I wouldn't have even known to process it that way if if it had not been for other people being offended I wouldn't have even known that was the thing to be offended about apparently I don't get offended too easily but still I accepted the apology in my tweet apology accepted because I first of all agree that you should accept apologies when they're sincere and even when they're not so my my view is that even an insincere apology as long as it's a

[57:42]

an insincere apology as long as it's a good effort should be accepted because it's a good way to organize Society I'm not much about demanding apologies there are situations where that makes sense but that's not my thing I'm not the guy demanding apologies which is fair because I'm also not the guy who's offended by other things so I think I'm consistent there but when they're offered I accept them and what I like about this somebody says they're offended for me yeah it's usually the way it works what I like about this is how she handled it so I've always put this standard forward and I recommend it to all of you if you're judging people by their mistakes you're gonna be living in a crappy world because we're all making mistakes all the time so if we're judging people by their mistakes you you're just creating the world you don't want to live in but because we're all making mistakes all the time but if you judge people by how they respond to

[58:43]

judge people by how they respond to their mistakes then you've got a much better system that's the system you want to live in so I'll say her name again because I'm paying her respect Lupita nyong oh she made a mistake very small one I knew it was a tiny little mistake but she owned up to it she gave a full explanation she offered what I think is a sincere apology I really think it was sincere done she handled it perfectly I like her more than before she made the problem let me say that again if you handle your mistake well I'm gonna like you more than if you'd never made a mistake there's a there's a something like that when it comes to customer service there's a well well-known studies that if a customer has a problem and complains and the in the business they complained to handles it well that that person is

[59:43]

to handles it well that that person is more likely to be a repeat customer than someone who never had a problem so that's an important thing to understand if the company that did something to the customer fixes it says oh my god I'm sorry here's how here's what we'll do to fix it you guarantee you have a customer for life because people are very influenced by how you fix a problem they are not so influenced by the fact that you had one right important point let's talk about boycotts because it's in the same kind of general thing so George Clooney recommended that because the Sultan of Brunei is implementing Sharia law which will punish LGBTQ people in that country quite brutally with death I think so Clooney is saying we should boycott the hotels that this Sultan owns I guess Bill Maher came out on the other side of this saying you know that

[1:00:45]

side of this saying you know that boycotts are lame and of course Bill Maher has been on the on the receiving end of a boycott I too have been on the receiving end of a boycott and I'm still there so the the receiving end of the boycott is now fun yeah my my income went down 30 or 40 percent just from talking about politics and so boycotts are no good but here's from with boycotts and apologies they're like viruses as soon as that first boycott enters the conversation there's gonna be more boycotts and you could find a reason to dislike just about everybody until you're boycotting a Democrat owned business or a Republican owned business you know the you know I don't believe in the slippery slopes per se because usually there's an obvious thing that will stop the slippery slope from continuing slides but in the absence of

[1:01:47]

continuing slides but in the absence of any counter force you should expect things to keep going in the same direction and with the apologies I don't see a counterforce it just looks like the poor democrats are gonna have to apologize forever there's there's no pushback to it likewise with boycotts if you allow that a boycott is a good thing to do in any situation then you're accepting that you're living in a world where everybody's going to get boycotted eventually so if you want to live in the world where everybody gets boycott it then boycotts if you don't want to live in that world don't boycott all right I am boycotting answering my phone speak speak you that I was complaining because as you know everybody's getting more robo calls and spam calls on their cell phones I was getting me pretty much all of my calls you know something like 95% of all my calls were just spam so people recommended some spam killer apps I had

[1:02:50]

recommended some spam killer apps I had not used any spam killer apps because honestly I didn't think they would work I hadn't looked into it I just didn't think it would work it just felt like the sort of thing that wouldn't work but I I tried one which I loaded on my phone and since I loaded that on my phone I have zero phone calls blocking the number doesn't help because the new technologies and spammers are using it comes from a different phone number and often it says it belongs to some company or person so that you can't really block phone numbers anymore that used to work but it doesn't work so I will just tell you this there is at least one app that does work and I'm not going to give it advertisement for it because apparently there are a number of them the phone companies themselves produce some apps to do that please use them and maybe you can end this so if everybody uses the the spam killer apps whichever one you

[1:03:51]

the spam killer apps whichever one you find it works for you then yeah blah I'll say it again blocking the callers doesn't work you can't block them because they always come in on a different number there's there's no blocking that works in all right let's talk about a lot of people are talking about the molar report so the the sequel to Muller report is coming out let's call it Muller to the sequel and this will be the detailed report or as much of it as we can see and people are already salivating because they say waymond Muller didn't say there was no evidence of trumps misdeeds he didn't say that he said it wasn't enough to convicted aight I suppose so when we see that report it's just gonna be full of stuff that's bad news for Trump well I have

[1:04:53]

that's bad news for Trump well I have two points on that number one it is impossible to tell the difference between coincidence and confirmation bias and evidence of a crime they look the same for example if you saw coincidentally a number of Trump administration people forgot to report conversations with Russians you should say to yourself huh that raises a flag let me look into this so there are a lot of things that would raise a flag and you would say I'd better look into this but that doesn't mean there's anything to it because presumably the Russians were trying to talk to anybody who might come into power so you should expect that anybody who's close to power in the United States would get at least a few contacts or attempted contacts from some Russians so even though it said it looks

[1:05:56]

Russians so even though it said it looks like well this looks like evidence by itself it's not but if I can find other things then this would be meaningful you're going to see a whole bunch of stuff that looks like confirmation bias that the Democrats will spin as where it is it's proof that something was bad I don't know why Muller didn't indict on all this proof and the Democrat and the Republican publicans are going to say either we already knew that it's gonna be stuff like the Trump Tower meeting so we're gonna say well we already knew that the Carter page we already do that Papadopoulos we already knew that so you're gonna see a whole bunch of stuff we already knew that that individually didn't mean anything there were coincidences confirmation bias etc so my guess is that if there was if there were even one new fact in what's gonna commanded that Muller report that was important there will be new facts but if it if it were somehow important I think we would

[1:06:58]

were somehow important I think we would already know it don't you think do you think there's anything in the Muller report that's important and that we don't know I don't know I I'm skeptical I do think that repeat releasing the report will give the Democrats lots to lusty uses fodder I'm sure that because just because there will be a lot there that they can take out of context yeah well did you see that Duke University has to pay a hundred and twelve point five million dollars to settle a case because they were falsifying data for their scientific grant requests let me say that again Duke University had to pay over a hundred million dollars to settle claims that they had repeatedly falsified data in their scientific studies as part of getting money to do

[1:08:00]

studies as part of getting money to do more studies so I tweeted that around with so I guess the science is settled when you see when you see the Duke University case and you see how massively people were maybe not colluding in terms of talking to each other but we're individually all criminal I think it's criminal isn't it wouldn't it be criminal to fake data to get money feels like that would be a crime right that's why they were being prosecuted so if you see that many people who are real scientists and probably you know have otherwise good intentions they're real scientists and they were criminals there were actually criminals a lot of them it wasn't like they said hey you got that one guy hey Duke you know that one scientist he got that one scientist who keep some falsifying stuff it wasn't that I don't know how many scientists

[1:09:03]

that I don't know how many scientists were involved but it was multiple and there were multiple events it wasn't even a one time occurrence so apparently there is an ethic or a standard in which falsifying data to get grant money is not that unusual so if you're looking at climate of science and saying to yourself well there's no way that all of these you know literally probably millions of scientists could all be in on it it couldn't be a conspiracy where everybody's in on it doesn't need to be look at the Duke University case my guess is that those scientists were not colluding with each other they just all independently said to themselves what is in my best interest and then they acted on their own best interests what would make the larger climate science conversation any

[1:10:03]

climate science conversation any different than that it's the same situation just larger it's just more scientists getting more grant money on other topics why in the world would we expect that to be different from the Duke University case now I always have to add this caveat I think it's a guarantee I think the given human nature and how humans will always grab money if it looks like they can get away with it and it's a lot of money under those two conditions we think we can get away with it and there's a lot of money involved you can depend on anybody doesn't matter who they are or how nice they were up until that point you can kind of depend on human nature to grab the money now I assume that that is happening in climate science at a massive level that people are in fact falsifying data to get money

[1:11:05]

are in fact falsifying data to get money but here I want to be very clear about this that does not in any way mean the climate science isn't real and it doesn't mean it's not a problem those are very different things you could have 75% of all the climate scientists be literally criminals literally they could actually just be criminals falsifying data to get grants just like Duke and it still wouldn't tell you if climate science is a hoax or if it's real age is what they're just different things if 25% of the climate scientists are right we got a big problem and I I don't know who's right because I can't determine the rightness by looking into it anyway the Duke University case should give you pause about what you believe from any large organization even if they're scientists alright let's talk about let's talk about gravity all right

[1:12:10]

about let's talk about gravity all right here we're into Bonus Time all of the people who only wanted to follow the politics are already gone so I'm gonna do the crazy stuff at the end are you ready we're going into the crazy stuff have you heard of string theory string theory is this amazingly complicated set of ideas that you can describe everything in terms of physics and the way the universe works in terms of some equations if they can only solve these equations but they're too hard to solve so so string theory has been for a couple decades the primary scientific [Music] area of inquiry to try to figure out in Stein's you know if grabed failed effort to find the unifying thing that ties it all together you may not be aware that it hasn't work I think it may have worked in some minor ways but it has not worked and it doesn't look like it's close to working for figuring out

[1:13:12]

it's close to working for figuring out the model of the universe you know the theory of everything so I would like to suggest a competing theory that's right I am a cartoonist and I'm going to come I'm going to suggest a competing theory for the theory of everything and the string theory will look like it came up you know it was thrown up by a chimpanzee when I'm done explaining it alright and it goes like this so first of all this is a hypothesis and I'm gonna offer a way to look into it alright so I'm not saying this is true this is just for fun and it's a hypothesis it goes like this if we are a simulation then the rules meaning that we're programmed by some larger power it would have programmed all the rules of physics into our experience now if you know about gravity and by the way somebody fact-checked me on this because again I'm not a physicist so fact check this the theory of gravity as we

[1:14:13]

this the theory of gravity as we understand it is that everything has a gravitational effect on everything else in the universe it's just very small in fact gravity is a very weak force you need an entire planet before you can even feel it but it's true that this this has a gravitational force to my cup it's just very very weak but here's the weird part the cup also has a gravitational force on the planet like on the other side of the universe if I do this I'm moving my cup if I move my cup in theory it's actually affecting a planet on the other end of the solar system and in fact the entire solar system so right now I'm affecting the gravity everywhere in the universe according to theory because gravity is everywhere and it's all connected somebody needs to fact-checking on that but I think is right now if you were a programmer and you want to build a simulation would you build a simulation in which

[1:15:16]

would you build a simulation in which every item has an effect on every other item in the universe that would be very complicated and probably you know would be beyond your processing power unless you were a super advanced you know alien race here's what you would do more likely more likely you would build your model so it's the same way that we build video games now so the video game characters have have gravity but the gravity in their video game it doesn't have any effect on other video games and other scenes so if a guy is jumping up and down in your game you don't need to include any code for how his gravity affects anybody else you could treat all the items like they have their own gravity simpler right so let me suggest this I'm going to give you a I'm gonna I'm gonna update a theory that I've been or a speculation or let's not the

[1:16:18]

or a speculation or let's not the theories not the wrong word let's call it a mental experiment a thought experiment that I introduced decades ago it was this imagine that there's no there are only two things in the universe there's a gigantic ball that's the size of the earth and it's thick a big thick ball the size of the earth and the only other object in the universe besides this giant ball is you and you're on it now if you and the ball were both expanding in size but in relationship to you know in a you know in a like fashion so that you couldn't tell so let's say the ball is expanding and you are also expanding at the same time could you tell that anything was expanding and the answer is you couldn't tell because you were expanding at the same size as everything else would all look the same all the time but if you tried to jump off the ball the ball would expand until it caught up to you

[1:17:19]

would expand until it caught up to you would it feel exactly like gravity and would look to an observer who also couldn't tell that anything was growing that somebody had simply jumped off the earth and then the gravity brought them back down would it look the same because it would be easy to program an artificial world to just say all right everything in the universe is expanding all the time because then you've solved for the fact that my coffee cup is affecting the gravity on the other side of the universe because it would look like it was because when I moved it it was growing and it either got closer or further from things on the other side of the universe so in a tiny way it would be as if everything was connected by gravity but it would be easy to program you just say everything just gets bigger all the time now some of you are going to say wait wait wait that doesn't work it only works if you have two items in the universe as soon as you throw in orbits and you throw in the fact that

[1:18:19]

orbits and you throw in the fact that denser objects have more gravity as soon as you throw in a few of these things Scott your whole theory falls apart to which I say what if you're the programmer if you're the programmer you it is very typical in the programming world to build one general rule and then when there are a bunch of things that don't conform to the rule you put in the special cases generally everything's growing but if you need to account for a let's say some density you throw in a little code that compensates for that you need to throw in some orbit stuff throw in a little code to compensate for that and in a very simple way you've created an artificial world where all the people in it believe that they have something called gravity but in fact they're just three or four coded rules that create everything we see that appears to be gravity so my my alternative to string theory is coder theater coder Theory Co de are the idea

[1:19:24]

theater coder Theory Co de are the idea that we are coded by a higher power meaning a civilization of humans or aliens or something it doesn't have to be God and and so if you were to start with assumption and say okay if we were gonna write this computer simulation how would we do it we'd probably have a general rule and then we'd have a few extra pieces of code to take care of the exceptions that's how we'd do it so instead of looking for the single string theory multiple dimensions impossible to solve way of understanding the world why not just say if we were gonna make this world this is how we'd write it and then you check to see if those assumptions about saving resources you know bear out there's probably some way to check it so I'm not clever enough to know that there's some way to check that hypothesis but that's that's the hypothesis all right not impossible to

[1:20:25]

hypothesis all right not impossible to solve impossible to test is it impossible to test that we are coded it might be but I don't accept that as true I was accept only as true that it's not obvious how you would test it but that would be true of everything in science to me I mean there are lots of things that I wouldn't know how to test I mean most of the things that physicists have figured out I wouldn't have known to even know what to test so the fact that we don't know how to test it doesn't really mean much if somebody says it's impossible it would be impossible oh let me let me say this it would be impossible if you've got a false test in which in which that we had been coded that wouldn't tell you because some of the coder could have built in that coat to prevent you from ever learning your true nature but if you found a positive proof in

[1:21:30]

but if you found a positive proof in which you proved it was true then you would know it was true so getting a negative wouldn't tell you anything but if you could get a positive result and prove it that would tell you something and I don't know if that's possible but that's all I got for today think about that and I will talk to you later