Episode 733 Scott Adams: Democrat Debate, Shampeachment Reality Bubbles

Date: 2019-11-21 | Duration: 57:34

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Review of Democrat candidates debate performance Wisconsin poll shows President Trump leads all Dem candidates A key insight about President Trump and quid pro quo Devin Nunes introduction statement before each session CNN and MSNBC’s hard selling weasel words and… …intentional vagueness? Is dark matter additional evidence that we ARE a simulation?

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

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

## Transcript

[0:10]

Papo Papo Papo oh hey everybody come on in here we've got to talk about the Democrat the democratic debate last night and of course the Sham Pietschmann t' that's all there is lately I'm pretty sure there are important things happening somewhere else in the world but I don't know we're not talking about and that's because you're here for the simultaneous up it's not always about the news now sometimes it's about connecting with your fellow humans all over the world and enjoying something that we come to know as the simultaneous happen all you need is a copper Margaret glasses snifter Stein chalice tankard thermos flask canteen Grail goblet vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine he ended the day the thing that makes everything better the simultaneous imp go oh yeah that's

[1:19]

the simultaneous imp go oh yeah that's the good stuff right there well let's talk about I don't know sham peach mint what were the democratic debate we'll get to sham Pietschmann in a moment but the democratic debate let me give you a rundown on how I think everybody did you got Joe Biden who couldn't possibly stay top of the polls for much longer they invited really just sort of fell apart the crowd actually laughed at him for what if his one of his gaffes of which there were several but he just didn't look like he's all there and I'm pretty sure that the his and tires port is based on people who haven't seen him lately yeah that that's the entire hit against Biden news have you seen him

[2:22]

hit against Biden news have you seen him lately because if you're still basing your opinion on how he was five years ago you got a problem so Biden is dead man walking he's he's not gonna get nominated booed a judge I wanted to like I wanted to like butta judge but he's better he's easier to like in the abstract if you're just thinking about him you're thinking oh he's smart he's well-meaning he's somewhat in the middle you know he brings a lot of stuff but then you watch him actually debate in which he is on the stage contrasted with the other politicians and I swear to god all I could see is the smartest kid in high school trying to run for student council I just can't take him seriously as a leader because he his vibe is to let's

[3:25]

leader because he his vibe is to let's say too smart and too young and either those things were popular in the United States if you're picking a leader too young is really not working for you and too smart we hate that stuff because it didn't he talked a lot and I don't remember any of it do you think of all the things that Buddha judge said during the democratic debate he got quite a bit of talking time I think he was one of the top people in terms of how much time he got to talk I don't remember any of it
it do you this is a problem with being too smart and too eloquent and too he's almost too good he's like the best debater you ever saw but none of it is interesting so I don't know if he can break through with that

[4:27]

break through with that tulsi gabbard did not have a good night she didn't have a terrible night but she didn't do anything to you know stay in the race I think I would imagine that Tulsi will have a tough time making the next debates just because she didn't stand out and I just don't see her policies being close enough to what the Democrats are looking for and I think her she's become a little bit of a too focused on the anti-war part which is good but anti-war and not doing regime regime changes is what we already have we already have that president so Tulsi gabbard's strongest point that she would not do with the regime change stuff we already have that president so that's a tough contrast for her I thought birdy birdy surprisingly didn't get as much time as some of the others

[5:27]

get as much time as some of the others he was in the top four I think but birdy was just birdy birdy did not convert anybody knew probably probably didn't lose anybody so I think birdies sort of failed to make an impact which is bad for burning cory booker got a little attention he looked he looked borderline presidential but he's so close to being you know booted out of the entire process because the process really yeah yeah I would say the process is really rigged in the sense maybe accidentally but it's rigged in terms of people have name recognition and it's hard to you know work your way through the crowd if you get to be kicked off the debate stage so cory booker is interesting but i don't know if democrats are buying into him enough

[6:34]

Klobuchar still has the right policies and she has lots of capability but man is she bought ringg Klobuchar talks like this everything she says is probably smart and it makes sense and I don't really argue with much of it except for some of it his opinion and the President must be removed from office but she's boring me with her monotone and I don't think I can listen to that for four years or maybe eight years I would blow my brains out even though she's very capable she doesn't come across as sufficiently care charismatic to be President of the United States perhaps she could be a good governor maybe a good senator I think she is a good senator right and we've got yang again you didn't distinguish himself stuck to his interesting but not setting the world on fire ideas and I think he sort of disappeared on the stage and honestly

[7:37]

disappeared on the stage and honestly the not wearing a necktie think it's not really working for him I think you could get away with not wearing the necktie if you were in the top three because then people would say oh you could be in the top three and not worry that guy but if you're in the toward the bottom of the polling and you don't wear a necktie I don't know if it looks like you're trying hard enough I don't know if that's reading the way he wants it to read it's the sort of thing that works if you're in a commanding lead they dress any way you want everybody loves you but if you're not it maybe it looks like you're not as serious about the process so I think that works against them let's talk about Harris if you want to know how Harris did don't watch the right leading news don't watch Fox News to watch Breitbart to find out how Harris did because it doesn't matter what people associated with Republicans

[8:37]

what people associated with Republicans liked because this is the primaries so I looked to see what CNN and MSNBC and the like were saying and there was one tell that was very interesting Jenna Ruben who is a very well-known anti chopper and seems to be connected to let's say the deep state so she seems to be pretty connected to the permanent Democratic machine and she tweeted that that Kamala Harris was having a good night which tells me that there's some preference that she has good nights so there might be some some possibly it could be a signal that there's some consensus building with her because maybe she could win now here what's the most interesting thing about Harris's presentation remember I told you that

[9:40]

presentation remember I told you that she could win if she made the following changes improve her body language and stop laughing at her own jokes and also I think she sought peace to stop doing terrible commercials hanging around preschool because it just doesn't look presidential so last night no laughing right and in fact I saw Jonah Goldberg called that out on Twitter notice that she wasn't laughing at her own jokes is that intentional probably is you know and I thought her body language was better it could be because there's a there behind the podiums so so maybe it's just natural that you have any better body language when you're standing behind something like that but I thought that she came across as powerful I thought

[10:42]

she came across as powerful I thought she was too lawyerly if if she were trying to convince me I would say you know she wasn't likable and she was a little too lawyerly but it doesn't matter what I think because I'm not I'm not part of the primary process so if if Democrats liked her and I heard a number of people saying that she had a good night that's important now the most important thing that Hera said was that she was trying to put together the Obama coalition meaning the the groups of people who were pro Obama now here's how she said it I want to pull together the you know the people of color I forget the exact quote but you know what the women the LGBTQ and then I'm waiting for her to say had white people in her list of who she was pulling together for her coalition because I'm pretty sure that

[11:43]

coalition because I'm pretty sure that Obama needed a lot of white people to vote for him so I'm waiting for that you know she's like you need the black vote the LGBT and then she says and the middle class or the working working people or something like that and I thought really you left out white people in your coalition how's that gonna work so the way she worded it was a secret racist dog whistle that basically she wants the Democrats to be the party of everything except old white people now it was actually a very effective thing for her to say because if you're talking about electability you have to forget about the people who can't get the black vote can boot a judge get the black vote probably no can birdie probably no because it can Elizabeth Warren probably

[12:44]

because it can Elizabeth Warren probably no can Biden probably yes but he also can't win the general so does it matter that he could get them or not so for Harris to point out that using her a clever secret racist dog whistle of calling it the Obama coalition she's trying to say this is no party for old white people but if there are also working people maybe they'll vote for us so it wasn't a bad approach because I think it's a signal to Democrats look if you want somebody who can win you're gonna need a woman who's a person of color because that's how you get the the coalition but the way she worded it was very anti Obama what what's the thing I tell you makes Obama special you know you may hate his politics blah blah you know I'm

[13:46]

hate his politics blah blah you know I'm not talking about his whole presidency but one of the things that made by I'm sorry Obama special and I've said this a number of times is that he didn't run to be the first black president and he was really consistent about that he ran to be in the president and he didn't say I'm gonna scoop up all the black voters hahaha because I'm black because that would have been racist Obama brilliantly brilliantly downplayed the fact that he was would have been the first black president and then was he'd let everybody else talk about it that's the way you do it that's the way you do it Harris talked about it which which he allowed her to send the secret racist dog whistle that she wants to be sort of the the leader of the women and the the

[14:46]

the the leader of the women and the the black voters in the Democratic Party and didn't even mention white voters didn't even mention them which is was really striking in its absence because how do you get elected without it that said it probably went over well with Democrats so I think she had a good night now I will remind you that over a year ago I predicted Harris would get the nomination I've continued with my prediction because I don't think it's fair to change it you know I think I should be held accountable for it I have also said that she was the worst campaigner I've ever seen and so far that's true but I gotta say that on the based age she isn't bad at all and if what people know about her is are debating if that's the part they pay attention to she looks pretty strong I also said that if she could fix her body language you know and basically the way

[15:47]

language you know and basically the way she presents her demeanor and not laugh at her own jokes that she could still still make a run for the nomination last night she did those two things now do you think somebody else got to her do you think it's a coincidence or do you think do you think I don't know who else was saying it was there anybody else saying that she needed to stop laughing at her own jokes I don't know if anybody else said it before I said it but she has now done the things I said she needs to do to win so what's that do I think I saw was it Bill O'Reilly who tweeted is it just me or is she hard to like talking about Harris and I gotta say I have the same feeling about it she's hard to like but how much of that is gender are women saying oh she looks hard to

[16:49]

are women saying oh she looks hard to like I don't know I don't know if women they're saying she's hard to like then that's a real problem but remember we said hard to like about Hillary you know Republicans always said Hillary was hard to like and Hillary said well it's you know their sexes have involved was there maybe you know I wouldn't rule that out maybe I mean there were plenty of reasons not to vote for her but you can't rule out that there was something about her that reminded you of your ex-wife I think guys had a different response to Hillary Clinton than women it is that fair to say whether you're Republican or Democrat I think there's definitely a a gender difference in how personalities are received for example Trump's personality

[17:51]

received for example Trump's personality plays better with men wouldn't you say you know I think Trump is hard to like if you're a Democrat in a woman so some people are hard to like depending on who you are and depending on who they are so I think that's a fair statement the Harris is hard to like for Republican men which doesn't matter at all it's not predictive so I'm gonna say and somebody said that I think it was Barnes I don't know if you're you're watching but you said that apparently the overseas betting markets for Harris went way up like up 40% can somebody check that while we're while I'm talking and put it in the comments check predict it and tell me who went up did because I would guess the Harris

[18:54]

did because I would guess the Harris went up that's my guess all right so that's how everybody did my prediction of Cobble Harris getting the nomination looks the best today that it has looked in several months which doesn't mean I'm right but I'm going to stick with my prediction I would say yang has no chance I would say Tulsi has no chance cory booker's sort of a wild card he could surprise but at the moment it looks like he's about ready to be you know cancelled from the debates for not getting enough poll numbers although he did he had a great fundraising day yesterday it's worth saying so he did make an impact yesterday it might be enough and you know here's the thing one reason you shouldn't count cory booker out does that he's super smart and smart goes a law

[19:55]

and smart goes a law way all right now a lot of the candidates are smart and if you look at the smart ones how are they doing Elizabeth Warren very smart how is she doing really well right Pete Buddha judge very smart very smart how is he doing really well really well he's outperforming what you'd expect from a mayor from the mid-sized city so smart does count smart is pretty predictive it doesn't mean you win but spar certainly counts and so that's why I booked her is a wild card because he's really really smart somebody mentioned steyr he's barely worth mentioning because unless he gets a little more purchase on things I don't think he's terribly relevant to the process all right let's talk about oh and then I guess there was a Marquette law Wisconsin poll I don't know how

[20:56]

law Wisconsin poll I don't know how prestigious the Marquette law Wisconsin polis but Wisconsin being one of those swing states suddenly for the first time Trump leads in a hypothetical matchup with any of the Democrats Trump leads every one of them for the first time for the first time so in the middle of the impeachment hearings Trump's poll numbers and an important swing state just went way up who predicted that a lot of people including me I'm not gonna I'm not gonna claims some like smart prediction on my part because all the smart people said the same thing if if you go for the king you know and you don't kill him you got trouble it looks like this impeachment process there they went to take out the king in this case the president and it looks like it's not

[21:57]

president and it looks like it's not going to work we'll talk about that alright so I was so here's my realization yesterday and I don't know why this took me so long when I when I tell you this realization you're gonna say to yourself wait a minute why is this the first time we're thinking to this all right it's it's funny because it's so obvious and when you hear it I think you'll really laugh that you didn't already see this all right here it comes the the sunland testimony is that he was sure there was a quid pro quo based on context and talking to Rudy and other things but when he asked the president the president said unambiguously no quid pro quo pro quo just tell him to do the right thing meaning zalenski now how do you explain that the president said directly no quid pro quo just do the right thing I'm not asking you know I'm

[23:00]

right thing I'm not asking you know I'm not offering anything as a as an award for doing the right thing and yeah everybody thought it was a quid pro quo in context so here's my insight that you're gonna laugh that you didn't think of it already it's President Trump name name a situation in which he's negotiating something in which his first offer is not give it to me for free do you feel it yeah his first offer or his first ask in every situation is given to me for free now if you're doing a trade negotiations it's obviously there's no concept of free you know everybody's getting something and giving something but when you're talking to a foreign leader and there's something you want and the leader has an agreement with you

[24:00]

and the leader has an agreement with you for investigations there's actually a treaty that specifically mentions that you can talk to them and you can ask for this the treaty says we can ask for investigations if you have a treaty with another country and it says you can do something would your first offer be we're gonna bribe you for it would that be your first offer never there's no scenario that's realistic in which President Trump's first conversation with Ukraine is we're gonna give you something for this not in a million years and why is this the first time you're thinking of it why did it take me months to realize that he would never offer something when he had every right to get it for free every right to ask for it for free that's what

[25:00]

right to ask for it for free that's what the treaty is the treaty says you can go ask for this for free do you think Trump is going to enter in negotiation where there's a written treaty that says you can get this for free and he's not going to ask for it for free so when when Trump said to Sunland no quid pro quo he needs to do the right thing it's because there's a treaty and it is the right thing in no world does Trump give something away for nothing what's what's one of the biggest complaints people make about Trump's history one of the biggest complaints is that he doesn't pay his vendors he doesn't pay people he delays payment where else has the president delayed payment everywhere everywhere does any question every single payment now how could it be true that it looks like a quid pro quo to his

[26:02]

that it looks like a quid pro quo to his entire staff at the same time the president is saying no do not offer something in return I can't be more clear about that do not offer something in return makes perfect sense that the president had that mindset now let me remind you that there all of the evidence we've seen that it was quid pro quo comes from people's assumptions every single person who's asked what's your evidence of when pro quo has either an assumption or they talked to Rudy who is not the president and Rudy you know why ever Rudy says you don't know that that came from the president or not Rudy had a job that Rudy was doing it the way a lawyer does a job is that exactly what the president asked him to do or is just how really does the job so imagine you're in a court case you've

[27:02]

imagine you're in a court case you've been accused of something all right so you've been accused of a crime and you have 10 pieces of evidence against you and one on your side there's only one thing on your side but there's 10 pieces of evidence against you and then then you present it to the jury all all of the evidence against you all 10 of it from different witnesses etc is based on their own presumption according to them and the one thing that's on your side is the one piece of direct evidence there's only one piece of direct evidence President Trump what do you want out of Ukraine no quid pro quo direct and I believe nobody's questioned this because Sunland was the kind of witness that you can't even tell what sign he's on right because it felt like he was playing both sides so you wouldn't even automatically

[28:03]

sides so you wouldn't even automatically say well whatever he says is not likely to be true it really looked like Sunland was playing you straight to me I took Sunland as a completely credible witness even if I didn't like what he was saying so the the mere fact that the one piece of evidence you can rely on the one direct piece of evidence about the president's state of mind said no no quid pro quo as clearly as you could possibly say so you want to be in a position that the president's and where there's only one piece of evidence you can rely on and it's totally exculpatory now does that mean there was quid pro quo nope doesn't mean that it does not mean there was no quid pro quo it does mean the president said it in clear words don't go asking for something in return that's clear but

[29:05]

something in return that's clear but because he's the president as everybody will point out there's no such thing as no quid pro quo that's not a thing just because you're dealing with the President of the United States you need him if you're not making him happy it's going to be a problem all right but there is a difference between simply existing as a president in which people treat you a certain way you have a right to exist you have a right to have a conversation the sort of your job as president the fact that other people are interpreting that as a quid pro quo is not really your fault it's just sort of who you are it's your job if you're in the office of the president doesn't matter if you're Hillary or your Trump that doesn't matter everybody's going to treat you as an implied quid pro quo it does matter if you said it directly that would be a little bribe but he didn't he said the opposite directly so there's

[30:08]

said the opposite directly so there's certainly no crime about having an applied two quid pro quo is it possible that Rudy oversold the quid pro quo part yeah it's possible but that would not be the president's problem is it possible that aid was being withheld in any way because of the Ukraine's Ukrainians not doing what the president wanted them to do yes yes that is possible but is it a problem is it impeachable well here's the thing Ukraine was massively corrupt and the president wanted to know before he dumped his money there do we have somebody we can rely on who is genuinely looking into what would be one way to know if Solinsky was serious about corruption

[31:09]

Solinsky was serious about corruption there's one way to know if he looks at the verismo situation and the other stuff the CrowdStrike probably wasn't real but worth asking about you know the the only thing you would expect Ukraine would just say well the CrowdStrike thing is nothing but let me tell you the own let's look into Perez mo a little bit because there's something there and obviously the Biden connection is something worth looking at and apparently there are a number of situations in which Ukraine officials did try to interfere with the election we know that as fact because they wrote articles and stuff so it's a part of the public record that some members of the Ukrainian government tried to influence the 2016 election which is different from saying that Ukraine tried to do it there are individuals who tried to do so give it all that if the president knows about one specific thing that looks

[32:11]

about one specific thing that looks corrupt to him which is the bir isthmus situation and maybe the election interference and the president asks would no quid pro quo can you look into this now let's say the president doesn't get the answer that he wants what would that tell the president about how reliable Ukraine is as a an anti-corruption fighting regime as a proxy for whether the zolensky is a reliable corruption fighter Trump tested him with some things he knows about or wants to know about you know tell me about Brisbane look into it looking to Biden look into the election if zalenski wouldn't even do that could you trust him to be looking into any other corruption no right you wouldn't

[33:13]

corruption no right you wouldn't if you won't look into the thing that you know is suspicious why would you expect him to look into anything else
and so here's another point you've never heard before the whatever Trump was asking for in terms of investigation in Ukraine served as a proxy for whether Ukraine was a legitimate dependable partner so it would be entirely appropriate for the president to say let's just wait for a positive signal that corruption is on the downswing and that we can trust them with our money one way you get a positive signal about corruption in general is if you put out a specific request and it got handled responsibly that would tell you that corruption in general is probably something that this new president in

[34:14]

something that this new president in Ukraine is serious about so would it be appropriate for the president to hold off until he had a positive sign that Ukraine wasn't going to just steal the money and go away like the last time totally reasonable and that his request would access act as a proxy to tell you if Ukraine is serious just in general if they don't do this little thing are they going to do the big stuff the hard stuff it was reasonable all right so I don't think there's any chance that Trump will get removed from office from all this I think it will lead to a landslide I love new nez's are you watching new news when he does his introductory his introductory statements before each of the days of testimony it's really good so Anubis is just killing it because the way he's playing it is that it's not

[35:14]

way he's playing it is that it's not serious should not be taken serious by the audience should not be taken serious by any seriously by anybody there and that it's just theater and it's just ridiculous politics and he's doing a really good job because his little clips you know are gonna be taken out of context and promoted and people are gonna see that a lot so I think and then if you missed if you missed his play right before I came on so just a minute before I came on there was a dr. hill was getting ready to testify and her statement had been read into the record I guess an inter statement she said that the Republicans I guess on the Intelligence Committee that that they believed that the only the only intellection interference was from Ukraine and not from Russia and all right so there's an accusation there so that newness and his

[36:17]

accusation there so that newness and his and his group only believed that Ukraine was responsible for election interference and not Russia and and dudas takes out this report this like this thing that says you know it's basically something all the Republicans have signed off on this says yes Russia interfered here are all the examples and he just got this gigantic document and if the end he goes will make a copy available for for dr. hill and the other one so that they have they have it to refer to ouch basically anything else she said after that point it's just gonna look like because he just eat not he annihilated her before she opened her mouth and I was looking under her face as they're like handing her this gigantic document that proves conclusively and publicly that her main belief was complete and I'm

[37:19]

belief was complete and I'm just watching her face and she bad day yeah I would never want to have that day where you're sitting you're you getting ready to testify and the very first speaker just slaps you down so hard that there's nothing you can say after that that's gonna redeem you alright see you then of course we have the two movies on one screen situation and oh my god it's so entertaining if you're still trying to ignore if you're trying to ignore CNN because you're mad at them you don't like the way they cover things you are missing a lot in terms of entertainment and I mean that seriously you really need to check the news on all your sources to get an idea what's going on if you're only watching you know news on the right you don't know what the other people are seeing and therefore you

[38:20]

people are seeing and therefore you don't know what's going on at all and let me let me tell you how now of course CNN and MSNBC are selling this a sunland's testimony as well it's all over we we've made our we've made our point now and impeachment is on but they used words like here are some of the exact words on CNN's website that tried to make Trump look guilty without without was saying anything that's actually like a fact that would show that all right so they say it was stunning so yesterday's testimony was stunning why mmm it the testimony tied the decision to Trump it tied it to him meaning what what's that mean it was tied to him does that mean that we have evidence that Trump did something or did somebody else

[39:22]

Trump did something or did somebody else imagine it was tied to him linked he was linked to it he got linked to it but did he get linked to Trump get linked to the decision because of a fact or because somebody said they imagined it they also say it's an impeachment turning point in what way and why why is it an impeachment turning point as anything that would turn anything
Sadler's testimony is quote among the most significant to date okay it was significant why it's stunning why it's tied to it's linked to the president based on so there's a lot of language oh and it's also maybe a John Dean moment so that's tying it to water to Watergate

[40:24]

so that's tying it to water to Watergate to which I say maybe it's a John Dean moment maybe it's not but why all the reasons are left out this is where I'm going here there's a lot of words that make you sound pretty bad but it's not actually directly tied to any reasons killings and so I keep you know digging down it's like well it's probably some reasons and then you see the the clip which I owe here's here's some more things these are quotes from CNN's page the the testimony goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery okay what does that mean that the testimony goes right to the heart of the issue of bribery as well as other potential high crimes and misdemeanors if you read that sentence would you say to yourself oh there is now fact-based evidence that the president was involved in bribery and other high potential crimes or

[41:24]

and other high potential crimes or misdemeanors you might get that impression but that's not what sentences the sentence says that the testimony went to the heart of those things but when it went to the heart what did you find doesn't say did did you go to the heart of it and find there was nothing there or did you go to the heart of it and find there was something there and if you did what was it there the testimony was implicating the present hey you've been implicated of what implicated of what the testimony disinterred the foundations of trumps impeachment defense how it's it's hilariously vague so it's selling something hard but the reasons are generally left out I was talking about sunland his testimony essentially offers Democrats a

[42:24]

essentially offers Democrats a validation for moving ahead with the beach meant it offers them validation how because why this is a seminal moment in our investigation Schiff said why is it a seminal movement moment because Schiff got so excited he was leaking seminal fluid is that why because he doesn't say why somebody this is another quote from CNN's website on the face of it this was a disastrous day for Trump on the face of it what about the facts how did the facts do were the facts creating a disastrous day for Trump or was it only on the face of it and then

[43:26]

was it only on the face of it and then the CNN site is puzzled because they're talking about this like it's unbelievable yet the president declared total victory in the face of factual defeat so the president was factually defeated what was the fact which fact wasn't that defeated him was at the part when Sunland said that all of the evidence against the president was his own presumption sunland's presumption and the only evidence in favor of the president was direct evidence that he heard himself when he asked a direct question of the president is that a total a total defeat that sounds like a total factual victory to me am I am i hallucinating and they also like to say that the Republic Republicans pounced on stuff and they seized things so this also from CNN the

[44:28]

seized things so this also from CNN the president seized on the comment by Sunland in which he said Trump told him he didn't want a quid pro quo with Ukraine they seized on that comment well that's sort of the place you should seize because that comment is a fact that is completely it completely makes the whole thing go away but but the way CNN says it they seized on it like it like it was something unimportant yeah but we pounced on it so there's a lot of seizing and pouncing going on which minimizes the fact oh no yeah there's this little fact that they seized it they can't stop it they they made that little fact seem like more more than it was by seizing it and pouncing on it all right
so so that's some of their weird language I was writing down there's a lot more of it alright I don't see the

[45:31]

lot more of it alright I don't see the slightest chance that Trump gets removed from office there's nothing there that would make any Republican change their mind not even a little bit it looks completely exculpatory to me like completely it doesn't even look like a gray area anymore now this the guy whose testimony testifying right now Holmes is also testifying that it was his belief that there was a quid pro quo but mostly that comes from I think the way they're connecting it is that Trump told people to deal with Rudy and then Rudy I think allegedly made it clear that you know to get at any cooperation and get their money and gonna be meeting and all that that they that Ukraine had to play along but if that's the best you got good luck with that because I don't think anybody is arguing nobody's arguing there Rudy didn't push the

[46:33]

arguing there Rudy didn't push the envelope I don't think anybody any Republicans are saying oh everything Rudy did was just what the president wanted and totally appropriate Rudy's an attorney Rudy gets - rudy gets to try to kick into every door that he can kick it the attorney gets to push every button that can be pushed he doesn't have the same restrictions as a politician he's fighting for his client so if Rudy asks for some things that maybe the president would not have asked for still not illegal for the president you know the client doesn't get blamed for what the lawyer does all right unless unless the client asked him to do it specifically and that's not in evidence but the main thing is it all comes back to this yeah we and I get kind of tricked into talking about the quid pro quo stuff it's not relevant

[47:34]

quid pro quo stuff it's not relevant the only question that's relevant and you'll see I think you've noticed a few people saying this I think I'm probably the first person who said it that I don't add but now you see a few more people saying it that as long as the president was asking questions which the the voters and the citizens of the United States also hadn't interested and of course we had an interest in if Biden had in the nefarious connections over there now I'd be interested if it turned out there were none and I would be interested if it turned out there were some I'm not personally aware of any anything illegal by Joe Biden but I certainly wanted to know so as long as the president's asking questions that the substantial number of citizens also wanted the answer to that's that's the end of the story he's just doing his job the fact that it's also good for the

[48:34]

the fact that it's also good for the president not everything the president does for the country should by design also be good for him politically you wouldn't want the opposite would you would you ever want the president's interests for his own reelection to be disconnected from the interests of the other citizens you'd never want that you'd want it to be connected and they were so no problem with impeachment all right are we a simulation I have more evidence that we were a simulation and I like to update this every now and then and the the evidence that were were a software simulation and not an original species are that if you were if we were software there are certain things we would expect one is that we might experience different realities why would why would

[49:35]

different realities why would why would it be true if we were designed as software why would it be true we would experience different realities meaning subjectively we're watching the news but we're seeing two different worlds why would that indicate we're software well let me tell you it could be that we're just faulty we evolved to be have bad brains but if you were designing software it would be too hard to make every characters experience consistent with every other characters experience it would be too hard to program it so you would take a shortcut and you would make everybody have their own subjective experience except for some your base physics and in facts about the scenery so so you would see you see the programmer cut quarters because of resource management to let people live their own little truth so long as it

[50:38]

their own little truth so long as it didn't violate any other facts that were part of this simulation but here's my new one oh you would also not be able to see the simulation from the Alice and sure enough you can't exceed this the speed of light so we can never get outside our universe and look down at it and see what it's made of the other thing is you can't tell what it's made of if you were made of software you wouldn't be able to use a microscope at any level and look to see what you are because at some point if you went down down down down it just wouldn't make any sense it would just be zeros and ones but here's my new one how do you explain dark matter so apparently the universe is 80-85 percent dark matter meaning all the the empty spaces there's just nothing there do you believe that you can live in a in a reality in which 85% of everything doesn't seem to exist what

[51:44]

of everything doesn't seem to exist what does that sound like sounds like software because you don't build software that records or or takes into account things that will never be interacted with and all the stuff that's between stuff the so-called dark matter you can't interact with it so if we're software it just wouldn't exist there would just be some program rules about how the things that do exist interact and all the stuff in the middle just would exist so that's the there's more evidence that at least we're consistent with how we would be designed were we software all right I just like to throw that in the at the end just looking at your comments here's a little update I am still being totally demonetised on YouTube and one of the reasons that

[52:45]

YouTube and one of the reasons that YouTube could get away with it is cuz nobody really cares you know you might care a little bit but nobody really cares about my monetization it's nobody's gonna make a big deal about it and there's no way for me to find out what's going on but I'll tell you what's going on at least the observable part all of my content is demonetised within seconds long before any human could look at it so we know that about some kind of an algorithm or some kind of a list where I'm automatically demonetised now in the entire history of all of my videos that are on YouTube have I ever said even one thing that would be in even the questionable category to be demonetised mostly you know the answer to that right not once not once if I ever cross the line not with any of my videos not once have I crossed the line into anything

[53:46]

have I crossed the line into anything that would even be ambiguously cancelable nothing not even close so what is that that puts me on the instant de monetization list here's the punchline each time we get demonetized we immediately ask for a manual review what do you think happens when we ask for a manual review how often does it get overturned and then roboticized every time 90% of the time there were a few exceptions and we don't know why they were still demonetised but there was no good reason for it so what a human looks at it they agree there's nothing there that would cause it to be demonetised but here's the trick the human opinion comes after all the traffic has happened so even though it gets re monetized pretty much every time I make no money to speak of it's

[54:48]

I make no money to speak of it's essentially rounds to zero because they may be way today and all my videos that you know most of the traffic happens on day one so YouTube is just taking me ahead of the game completely taking me out of the game on the biggest platform that I could have an influencer now
are you being trolled well maybe but so that's going on so I wrote my book loser to think which so far people are saying is my best book and people are buying it already for gifts people are buying multiple copies people are buying the hard copy and then they're also buying the Kindle and also buy the audiobook because they want to consume it in different ways and have a permanent record but also listen to it in the car I've never seen that for any of my books I've never seen so many people buying multiple copies buying people are buying

[55:50]

multiple copies buying people are buying it for everybody in their class everybody in their organization so apparently it's already a huge gift item it would mean a lot to me if that book did well that doesn't change my life but it certainly makes it a lot more fun to do this because at the moment well I'll just say it directly at the moment it costs me money to do this so right now I you know have an assistant that I pay for processing my videos and putting them up on on YouTube and I pay my assistant more than the tiny demon the tiny monetization I get so I'm actually paying to do this you get it for free without commercials and I'm paying for that so it would be great if people bought my book because at least I would feel that I'm not wasting my time you

[56:51]

feel that I'm not wasting my time you know I'd like to feel that the market is responding now of course I would also like to think that the things I'm adding to the universe are good with or without compensation and fully worthy of putting out there but unless the market responds it's a little bit hard to imagine that anybody cares and so if loser think does well in sales I'm gonna say okay people care so it's still worth it for me to pay to do these videos because people yeah yeah that's the best way to find out alright that's all for now I will talk to you all later