Episode 763 Scott Adams: Join Me to Impeach a Cup of Coffee While Discussing The Impeachy World

Date: 2019-12-21 | Duration: 1:01:18

Topics

Is a vote to impeach, before a Senate trial…impeachment? The shocking ease of law enforcement phone tracking John McAfee’s thoughts on phone tracking CNN went dark in China for certain Democrat debate topic President Trump is whatever the situation requires… Presidential for state functions Entertaining comedian at his rallies Master troll on Twitter WSJ editorial: Mueller report did NOT mention Steele dossier was FALSE It was KNOWN to be false…long before his report Why is Nancy Pelosi delaying transmission of impeachment? The Atlantic, strident anti-Trump publication, mocks Paul Krugman The fake news list for 2019…is a LONG list The “Circle Game” is a COMMON, well known kids game The gender discussion National debt, why did we stop talking about that? Fairness is a subjective concept

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

[0:11]

thumpa hey everybody come on in welcome to the special holiday edition of coffee with scott adams now normally what we do at this time of day is we enjoy something called the simultaneous sip but there's a new word that's entered the vocabulary that can be used in any context whatsoever it seems it no longer means something bad the word is called impeach now there was a time I'm old enough to remember when a peach was a bad thing it applied to bad people doing bad things and it was a bad outcome but that seems to have changed and now the word impeach means something like a good fundraising technique and a bunch of so you can impeach anything now this morning I'm gonna impeach a cup of coffee yes you can join me you don't need coffee you could have your own beverage and impeach the hell out of it with me simultaneously all right and all you

[1:11]

simultaneously all right and all you need is a cup of Mario glasses mr. Stein chalice Dyckman thermos flask canteen Grail goblet vessel of any kind filled with your favorite liquid I like my coughing and get ready to impeach the hell out of it go hmm I can feel my fundraising increasing yes yes that was good impeached coffee right there now as you know I've made the I've made the prediction that the word impeach and the idea of impeaching would change because of Trump as opposed to impeaching changing Trump Trump is going to change everything we ever thought about the word impeach is happening already there was a I tweeted this this morning there was a movie review of the new Star Wars movie and the reviewer didn't like it and in the title for his movie review he said that JJ Abrams should be impeached

[2:12]

said that JJ Abrams should be impeached and so you're already seeing the word impeached move from this oh so serious political realm into just a silly word they use because it's funny impeachment has lost all of its power I think the funniest comment I heard was from Mitch McConnell he was giving a speech I guess the Senate and he was saying I have to paraphrase him because I can't get this exactly but McConnell said something like this no well I I don't know what kind of leverage Nancy Pelosi you think she has over us by not sending the articles of impeachment over I guess the idea is that they're gonna not send us something that we didn't want in the first place and I have to admit that was a really good way to couch it yep Nancy Pelosi sees leverage over Mitch McConnell is that she's going to not send him something he doesn't

[3:13]

to not send him something he doesn't want which is the impeachment articles so that's pretty funny now the new wrinkle is that as you heard I think I talked about it yesterday one of the Democrats witnesses a legal scholar what is his name Feldman I think said that in his opinion until the impeachment articles are transmitted over to the Senate impeachment has not happened so tactically there is no impeachment according to this one scholar but then Jonathan totally weighed in and as you don't colonel he's sort of a better expert than the other experts and he said he wrote well here's every part of the Constitution I think there were five parts of the Constitution they have some mention of impeachment and he writes an article he goes well here they are here's everything mentioned in the Constitution about impeachment Noah

[4:14]

Constitution about impeachment Noah Feldman ously is the attorney and Jonathan Turley says show me there where it says is not an impeachment until the articles have been sent over to the so apparently the the Constitution does not say that your impeachment didn't happen unless it's transmitted but how could both of those experts be right is there a way that Turley could be right and Feldman with complete opposite opinion could both be right well I don't know but let me propose this I believe it could be said that the house has voted to impeach so watch my language carefully they've voted to impeach I think everybody would agree that's just a true statement they voted to impeach but the process of impeaching seems to have hit a stall and if the house

[5:15]

have hit a stall and if the house doesn't do the entire process the voting being one part of the process and then the transmitting into the Senate being the other part can it be said that the impeachment has been finalized I would say no I would say that you could say the house has voted to impeach but they didn't until they transmit it I would say this is just sort of the the non legal scholar a way of looking at it because apparently the Constitution is vague enough and no surprise there that's why we have a Supreme Court because the Supreme the Constitution has lots of room for interpretation but my personal interpretation is that they voted for impeachment but they didn't do it because until you until you sent it if an impeachment you know somebody said this on social media probably lots of people send it if an impeachment falls in the forest and nobody hears it did it

[6:16]

in the forest and nobody hears it did it happen you know that's that's not really proving anything it's just a fun thought but I think you could have it both ways I think you could say that they voted for impeachment but they did not complete the steps of impeachment and so therefore if they do not transmit I think you'd have an argument that all you had was if but not an impeachment so that's my non legal scholar sense of it but doesn't it isn't it a wake up call that a step that's so central to our government is so central to the Constitution so essential to checks and balances as one what is an appeasement and how does it work and two of the most qualified scholars that we know about have looked at it the same question it came two opposite opinions now what's that tell you about experts looking at

[7:16]

that tell you about experts looking at the same stuff they're looking at the same stuff at the same time and it's not really even that complicated it's now like climate science where you'd really have to be an expert in a hundred different things to really know how it all fits together with this constitutional stuff there were five paragraphs basically out of the Constitution that's it and they're not even terribly complicated and they still can't agree what it says all right so that was interesting I noticed I don't know if it's because of the end of the year or what but it seems that the president has the major victory on the border wall funding stuff yeah not in terms of getting all the money he wanted but getting getting money that he could spend in the in the fashion that he needs to and I guess he's got some more flexibility about borrowing from other budgets but apparently the only requirement that the Democrats maybe it's not the only requirement but the

[8:16]

it's not the only requirement but the one mentioned that the Democrats put on that funding for the border security is wait for it the only way that it can be spent is according to the priorities of the border security experts and engineers how long have I been telling you that you could get your border funding if you're the debt if you're the Republicans just say the words I've been so long have I been saying this two years right just say the words we only want to do it where the engineers and the experts tell us to put it that's where we'll start you just got to say those words and suddenly money will come to you because you can't argue with putting the money where the experts say it needs to go first so so what was the final compromise if you can call it that then led the president to get his money and to be able to spend it where he wants he just had to promise to put it

[9:18]

wants he just had to promise to put it where the engineers said it was most important that's it you waited two years to do what I told you on day one was all you needed to do and I'm glad there are enough people watching this periscope that you can confirm that I have been calling for that all right there is a really scary story in the New York Times much much recommended it is talking about how the law enforcement or really anybody who has access to the data can track you by your phone now of course you all knew that you could be tracked by your phone but some of the lies which you've been told that the New York Times exposes very well I think is that the data that you're sending to these various apps about location is anonymized so they can't tell us you turns out that's true and false at the same time it's true that the data is anonymized when it's sent to the database the the not true part about it

[10:21]

database the the not true part about it is that it's a trivial matter to figure out who you were after the fact for example they can track your your location without knowing who you are at first and they can say huh this phone goes from this house this address to this work address five times a week that's it that's all they need to know who you are if they know where you where you live and where you go to work they know who you are they can also tell by you know who you who you travel with and everything else so it turns out there's no such thing as anonymous location information because your location does tell you who you are period and so pretty much everybody who's got a cell phone is being tracked through one app or another now this brings me to John McAfee I told you before I've invited John McAfee to be on on this periscope some day he asked he's he

[11:25]

periscope some day he asked he's he referred me to somebody on his his team or his family I'm not sure what to schedule it and I haven't haven't had that happen yet but he's answering some questions on Twitter about how it is that he hasn't been found because I guess he's on the run from authorities in this country and does it seem amazing to you that the United States can't figure out where John McAfee is he's on social media every day you know he's he's doing videos and stuff and we can't figure out where he is and he said today that he and his I guess his family or whoever he's with they don't have cell phones now McAfee claims that if you have a cell phone there isn't any way to hide the location you can VPN all you want but there's just nothing you can do there is no way to keep law enforcement from finding you if you have a felt a cell phone now I'm guessing he's right about that because he's pretty smart and he's looked into it and he hasn't been

[12:26]

he's looked into it and he hasn't been caught yet so I think he's making doing all his work on something like a laptop with something like multiple VPNs and and not the kind you grandmother uses like serious VPNs that somebody like back if he could use it you wouldn't even know how to find so that is very interesting yeah uses VPNs for your laptops that is correct if somebody asked them why you wouldn't use a burner phone and apparently those are not safe either because even if you have a burner phone you know maybe somebody can figure out who you are by who you called and where you are and that that sort of stuff so even a burner phone seems to be a problem so what do you how do you feel about that how do you feel about the fact that crime is essentially getting close to 100% solvable because between DNA

[13:27]

to 100% solvable because between DNA facial recognition the fact that cameras are everywhere and the fact that apparently 99% of all crimes are solved by cell phone location did you know that I think that was the McAfee claim the mat but the McAfee claim is that law enforcement just goes directly to your cell phone as soon as there's a crime they just look at the cell phones and they find you and it works basically every time so having you know feet on the ground to collect information that's just useless these days because they get you every time with your cell phone unless you're unless you McAfee apparently hears something else in the same kind of general general information CNN which was running the democratic debate actually went dark they actually turned their the TVs off the channel anyway it went dark when China was brought up as a as a critical question China actually just went dark on the

[14:30]

China actually just went dark on the democratic debate because I couldn't handle even the questions much less the answers and the questions were about the concentration camps for the Uighur Muslims and China just turned it off now can China succeed in keeping that kind of information away from its citizens forever and I'm not even sure the citizens care frankly you know maybe if you're a citizen in China you're just worrying about your own business and if you're not a Uighur minority it just doesn't bother you but it's kind of chilling to think that they can just turn off the TV for the parts that they don't like all right um here's a oh here's an update on Tulsi Gabbard so I told you a while ago that Tulsi had DM to me when I asked about having around the periscope she said yes her team was trying to schedule it I mentioned again that it hadn't been scheduled and then

[15:31]

that it hadn't been scheduled and then her team got back to me after that and then Tulsi Dee and to me this morning just to say that I'm sorry about the delay and she's trying to schedule it so you might see that interview in the next week or two we're trying to schedule it I don't want to give you the date we're talking about because it might change but look we have a yes so we have a confirmed yes we just have to make it happen all right
I tweeted I tweeted provocatively this question how many Democrats have noticed the following pattern right here's the pattern that President Trump is presidential for state functions so when he's meeting with other leaders he's meeting with the Queen meeting with the Pope he's presidential wouldn't you agree and then when he does his rallies which are basically stand-up comedy he

[16:33]

which are basically stand-up comedy he brings a different personality that is um hilariously inappropriate in other words part of his stand-up comedy is Don Rickles it's you know it's Howard Stern it's it goes too far and that's why we laugh at it because he goes too far but that personality is very specific to the rallies then he goes on Twitter and when he tweets he comes into a completely different personality it's also a little more provocative but it's it's a Twitter personality president Trump's Twitter trolling in his Twitter game is a perfect fit for Twitter so he adopts his personality and his style for each domain and and he excels in every domain I don't believe anybody has said that the president is not effective in state

[17:36]

the president is not effective in state meetings in fact maybe is the best because he's even been meeting with people that who are enemies and frenemies and guess along with them too you could argue that his state meetings you know leader to leaders are among the best I think you could make that argument now people will say well what about what about those Europeans who were caught laughing behind his back at the G was that whatever it was the last big meeting what about it does anybody here think that the leaders don't all laugh about each other behind each other's back do you let me ask you this so one of the people who got caught laughing behind the back of the president was Justin Trudeau who had what two or three blackface scandals this year let me ask you do you think any of the leaders of other countries laughed behind Justin Trudeau's back about all of his blackface scandals no nobody yeah you don't think Angela

[18:40]

no nobody yeah you don't think Angela Merkel had it had a little giggle about that no you don't think so come on come on you don't think they laughed about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky be serious are you kidding me of course they did you could go all the way back to Reagan you don't think that they made fun of his you know forgetting forgetting things and his elves I myrrh in his his astrologist who was who was advising him you don't think they laughed about that behind his back come on of course they did do you think there are any world leaders the Trump has not left about behind their backs none I mean maybe he likes some of them right but don't you think their Trump has made fun of Trudeau privately and when talking to other leaders of course he has do you think he's made fun of McCrone privately or even talking to other leaders of course yes of course he

[19:43]

other leaders of course yes of course he is the only difference is that the three douchebags who are talking about him got caught on the video right somebody had a phone that's the only difference they all laugh about each other it's just like every other part of the world it's just like you laughing you see it's the biggest nothing in the world who say that sub leaders are laughing at each other so this is one of the funniest tweets statistically speaking 66% of impeached presidents were impeached for humiliating Hillary Clinton so that of course would be Bill Clinton and President Trump so 66% of impeach presidents were impeached for humiliating Hillary Clinton technically true Wall Street Journal has an editorial today that every now and then I'll see a a piece of news that just is

[20:44]

I'll see a a piece of news that just is like a slap in the face because it's something that I should have noticed but didn't notice so when people point out something that I should have noticed and I didn't it's really I love those stories anyway there's the thing The Wall Street Journal editorial appoints editorial points out is that Robert Muller's dossier report didn't say it was false let me say that again when Muller did his testimony and did his Muller report he did not conclude at least he didn't put it in the report he did not conclude that the steel dossier was false and was known to have been debunked well before the molar report came out let me say that again the steel dossier was thoroughly debunked before the molar report came out and and Muller

[21:44]

the molar report came out and and Muller said it was beyond his purview to say whether it was accurate or not seriously are you fricking kidding me that Muller clearly knew the steel document the steel dossier was by them and he didn't mention that like that didn't seem important it was the most important thing it wasn't the unimportant thing it was
was the most important thing you know kind of comes down to that right of the things that actually happened it was the most important thing other things people imagined might have happened those would have been more important but they didn't happen they were imaginary the longer that the longer that and by the way does that do you have the same reaction to that did you notice because there's just so much noise and you know in all this

[22:46]

much noise and you know in all this reporting did you even notice that Muller was silent on the on the steel dossier the most critical part of the whole story you silent on it are you kidding me I mean I don't you know to say about that it's just it's much just mind-blowing ly weird there's continued speculation on the question of what the hell is Nancy Pelosi thinking with her strategy of delaying the sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate until the Senate buckles down and changes their rules for the trial and you know of course that's not gonna happen so people are asking what is she thinking why what does she have a I watched Dana Perino say this yesterday on Fox News what exactly is their strategy does she have secret knowledge that we don't know about is there some clever plan that only Nancy Pelosi knows

[23:47]

clever plan that only Nancy Pelosi knows but none of us can see because it's not obvious now I would not rule out as as Dana Perino said quite astute Lee we're talking about Nancy Pelosi you're not talking about somebody who's who's new to this we're not talking about somebody who doesn't have a long track word track record of successful strategic thinking so given this Pelosi given that we know she's a strategic thinker at the highest order she knows how to do this stuff why is she doing what she's doing is there like it is this so clever we can't see it
it nobody else get either either there are no experts anywhere who can say oh yeah that's what she's up to you don't see this move but here's what she's up to nobody nobody at her side nobody in the other side there's literally nobody who has a good description of why this could be a good idea so the speculation goes to a few

[24:50]

so the speculation goes to a few different things one of them is she doesn't have an idea of how to make this right so she's trying to think of one so the delaying tactic could be nothing but uh uh we'd better we'd better put our heads together we better brainstorm maybe a little extra delay will give us some new strategic idea so it could be just a delay like a time out in any sporting thing so it could be just a timeout could be not to ruin Christmas think about it because if you're if you're Nancy Pelosi remember you're operating on a really high level of persuasion and strategy right so so give her the benefit that she's operating at the highest level it kinda does make sense that if you couldn't if you couldn't stop the Senate from overthrowing it and you can't or whatever they do acquit or or dismiss whatever they do you can't stop them from doing that but you you might be

[25:53]

from doing that but you you might be able to delay it until after Christmas so everybody's gonna go home and have a better Christmas if they're a Democrat because what they feel like is that they're going to Christmas with the victory so they will get to marinate in what feels like a victory for a few weeks before the Senate turns it all the so it could be that it's just something generous for the politicians and the voters who are on that side just to let them get through the holidays I mean it could be as simple as that probably not I mean that's probably not the whole story and then there's the theory that the only reason that she's doing is to get under Trump's skin to bother him he raised ten million dollars he raised ten million dollars and if you've looked at the comments on Twitter the number of people who said I've never donated to a campaign before but the moment the gavel

[26:54]

campaign before but the moment the gavel came down for impeach I I went to the website and I gave him $200 whatever so just person after person on social media is commenting that way I never given money before but it's not even about the candidates anymore it's about the Constitution now so it's basically a vote for the Constitution and people are giving a lot of money to that so it could be that she's just making the holidays good it could be she's just bugging Trump and then there's some speculation she must might want it just to sit there so that it seems more important as long as possible you know get it into people's heads as etc but I think Trump is successfully making impeachment turn into just a joke concept you know I think people are gonna be impeaching everything you know you're gonna get together with your boyfriend or girlfriend or lover and you're gonna impeach each other if you know what I mean I think impeaching is going to like move

[27:57]

I think impeaching is going to like move into the just pure drought joke category so it's like Jesse Smollett if you say Jesse's mullet you know there's a joke coming all right you know you don't even have to say anything else about it it's like hey I'm gonna make you smile jussie Smollett and you're automatically in it like a jokey mood so I think impeachment is going the Jesse Smollett route where it used to be this solemn important sad thing that you'd do for a country and that was just funny because the Democrats have just ruined the word ruined the concept they've taken all the credibility out of it because of being partisan instead of bipartisan it Trump changed impeachment they may never change back
you may be familiar with a publication called the Atlantic you might be familiar with it because it is one of the most strident anti-trump

[28:58]

the most strident anti-trump publications ever there's probably more fake news in the Atlantic in the form of opinion anyway than anywhere else in the world so the Atlantic doesn't even try to be anything except an anti-trump publication at least in the political sense and even the Atlantic ran an opinion piece today mocking Paul Krugman for having Trump derangement syndrome now it's not remarkable to hear a trump supporter say that Krugman has Trump derangement syndrome but this is not only his own team but this is this is like you know the captain of the team practically not really bad analogy but the Atlantic is so deeply and completely anti Trump that when they called their own the most prominent economist a suffering from Trump derangement syndrome and being wrong about everything Trump that's notable makes you wonder it makes you

[29:59]

notable makes you wonder it makes you wonder if even Democrats are starting to wonder about their own approach now remember I told you that what's going to be fun is that the end of the year you see all the lists you're going to see the list of all the things that Trump accomplished it's going to be a long list and then you can see the list of all the fake news I'll talk about in a moment and the list of fake news is really long like really long talk about that a minute all right
so yes let us talk about that so I tweeted today asking for people for the definitive list of fake news and people have been putting them in the comments and I'll just read you some of them so let's see let's see what people have suggested so in my comments so here here's some of the fake news that either

[30:59]

here's some of the fake news that either originated in this past year 2019 or it was still going so some of these originated earlier but they passed into 2019 so you had the Jessie smaller case the Cavanaugh allegations coming to the kids the Ukraine hoax the Russia hoax everything about the dossier everything about everything about the newness memo everything about Afghanistan reporting that happened earlier but we found out about it in 2019 I hear cheryl atkinson atkinson has a list of the fake news as she updates all the time so if you follow cheryl atkinson you can find links to that
there was the the army-navy game and the the kids who made the the okay assigned now are you as bothered as I am that when that story first broke and there

[31:59]

when that story first broke and there were reports that the cadets were doing the what they call a white power sigh and that looks like the okay sign that even at the beginning of the story there were credible people representative Crenshaw Dan Crenshaw was one of the people who noted that that's just a game people play where they make that sign and if somebody notices that you're making that sign below the belt you can punch him in the arm apparently it's been around for decades now I didn't know about that but the moment I heard Crenshaw explained that it's a common game that's been played forever I looked it up and sure enough it's called the circle game and it's a common game that's been played by young people forever I checked it with a few young people just to fact-check and a 11 and a 14 year old told me yes they were both familiar with us as a common game that mostly the boys play now here's my problem I agree with the military you

[33:02]

problem I agree with the military you know the whoever's the administrators who said they were going to research it and look into it because it was an accusation that it was a white power sign but even at the very beginning we had the alternative theory the alternative theory that it was just that game I watched for the reporting to at least say there's an alternative theory and even Fox News didn't do that now I feel as though that was a gigantic media failure probably on the left and the right because I can understand that maybe the the anti-trump er ISM on the Left would just sort of not mention that that's a game or that people are suggesting it's a game maybe they just wouldn't mention it but how do you explain you know that Fox News ran stories about it and didn't even mention that there's another hypothesis that it's just a game and it's a common game

[34:04]

it's just a game and it's a common game and you can google it and you could see that it's a game to me that was a pretty major news oversight it's one thing to say you don't know it's one thing to say the accusations are that it's white power I guess that's okay because that's the news but to not say there's another explanation and it's completely innocent yeah under the five they did say that that is correct so I'm talking about I read I forget what the article was but it was on the website for Fox News and I read it just to look for that and the early reporting did not include that and I thought man how do you not at least include that as a possibility all right what else we got here did you do we got just migrants forced to drink out of

[35:04]

just migrants forced to drink out of toilets that was fake news right because I think the they weren't drinking the toilet water I think they were drinking from the thing that feeds the toilet water which was clean water so sort of true but sorted enough let's see what else the Kurds were abandoned so somebody's calling that fake news that the Kurds were abandoned well that's more of a matter of opinion I think but I think it is true we're not seeing reporting that says that Turkey is wiping out the Kurds and it did seem to force people into making some concessions they didn't want to make so let's say that's an open question still the thought that the IG report found no bias when in fact they did find bias the the thought that Comey was vindicated by the IG report opposite

[36:08]

my god I'm just still looking for less um troops deployed to Saudi Arabia was that a story that I don't know the details that so I can't speak to that looking what else we get the children are say the children in cages and the children ripped from the hands of their parents I would say is true without the context that what was the alternative which was worse apparently and that Obama did the same thing so I would call that too fake news if it's only reported that trumpet Trump was doing it and it's and it's reported that there was a better option if you report that there was a better and the fine people of yes the the king of all hoaxes is that Trump called the racist insurance will find people when the transcript says exactly the opposite all right looking through some more your suggestions here all right now there's some saying that the

[37:11]

right now there's some saying that the the okay sign was never a white power symbol but rather it was a 4chan hoax that the media accepted but here's the here's the thing if the media accepted that that okay sign was a white supremacist signal even if it wasn't would not lots of white supremacists read the news and say to themselves hey it looks like we've got a hand signal now and then start using it so I would I was
was it could be both a hoax meaning that it started as a hoax on 4chan but if the media reported it as true wouldn't it very rapidly become true because racist who had never heard of it would say well I don't use 4chan but I'm glad that the news just told me I have a hand signal I guess I'll start using it so I would think it's started as a hoax that turned probably true for at least one racist somewhere yeah there's a fake news

[38:15]

somewhere yeah there's a fake news that's well well past gasps but that wasn't the most important story there was the story of the showing the shooting range that somebody said was the Kurds being killed I guess that was ABC what so there's this discussion of two genders all right let me get into this so there's this big left-right controversy about are there only two genders or are there multiple genders and transgenders and everything else I I haven't really talked on that topic because it feels like a dumb topic because it's mostly word thinking where people are just trying to win the argument somehow by just defining it's like I define genders this way and therefore there are only two and then

[39:17]

therefore there are only two and then the other person will say I define genders this other way and therefore there are lots of them there's no real argument it's just people making up their own definitions words if you wanted to bring that to the practical level the practical level being what do you do about it given that people disagree with how many genders are I think it depends on the situation and I think that here's my here's my opinion there are infinite genders meaning that people are infinitely different so even within the you know let's say somebody says that there completely heterosexual they're male there's probably a lot variance within that range I think there's just an infinite variety of everybody and if you're talking about where you personally want to define you know the beginning and the end of those definitions that's just stuff happening in your head that has no impact on me somebody says biology so so what yes yes

[40:22]

somebody says biology so so what yes yes biology exists yes biology for the most part determines what your genes are so so what like there's no so there's no so what to that I hear what you're saying it's just a fact now you hear other people saying they're for social reasons and for fairness and inclusion there are people who consider themselves different things there are people who are in grey areas there are all kinds of all kinds of distinctions and I say those people are arguing for social purposes and other people are just making a scientific case and they're not even in the same conversation so it's a dumb argument that's what I'm saying the the people who are arguing it's only two well says you
you under what circumstance for what purpose when is a good when's it not when is it practical when is it impractical you know the whole is science two genders it's just it's so empty you could be

[41:24]

it's just it's so empty you could be completely right and completely irrelevant at the same time so you know I guess you win you win all right those are mostly the mostly the things I wanted to talk about yes there are infinite species of humanoids in a sense we're all infinitely different somebody says Scott totally sucking up to the left block that's how to get yourself blocked if you want to characterize me as
as completely pro-trump or sucking up to the left or any of those dumb things I'm just gonna block you it's not even just because you're wrong it's because you're boring me alright don't don't just yeah I'm literally in the conversation about people being infinitely different and

[42:25]

people being infinitely different and then somebody thinks this would be a good time to label me how about don't I was reading a hip piece about me the other day it was actually a hit video by hit video I mean not that it was popular but that it was a an anti Scot piece of video now the bigger context was anti Kanye West I think but it was using me as an example of why he's such a bad black person according to this video because he listened to anything I said once so here's the thing they they introduced me in this in this video and here's how I was described as a libertarian men's rights activist which of those two things is true none when have I ever been a men's right activist so this will give you an idea of how faked not only the news is but even you

[43:25]

faked not only the news is but even you know the videos in the social media I was described as a men's rights activist do you don't have that started I once wrote a blog post and I'm not even making this up I once wrote a blog post in which I made fun of men's rights activists that's it and because of that you know it turned into a telephone game where it got repeated and reported incorrectly and then somebody repeated the incorrect reporting until I became according to this blogger who made a whole video about me and Kanye West and some other people my one blog post making fun of men's rights people turned me into one literally the opposite now let me state the men's rights activists have really good points but I'm not one you can have lots of good points but it doesn't mean them doesn't mean I joined your team you know the NRA has lots of good points but I didn't joined the NRA you know the

[44:26]

but I didn't joined the NRA you know the Republicans have lots of good points but I'm not a Republican the Democrats have some good points too but I'm not a Democrat so that was of course faint news then the second part was that he called me a libertarian never been a libertarian I have in the past described myself the following way libertarian without the crazy parts do you see what I'm doing there compare these two things I used to call myself and libertarian but without the crazy parts currently although I'd might have to change this during the election cycle for you know Trump I started calling myself left of Bernie think about these two things left at Bernie and libertarian without the crazy stuff what are those two things have in common I want to see if anybody can get it in the in the comments what do those two things have in common might take a while for your comments catch up so I'm just gonna tell you what

[45:27]

catch up so I'm just gonna tell you what they have in common is that they're not real I created two two political categories for myself that are real you can't even imagine what they are because if you say you're a libertarian but without the crazy parts what are the crazy parts most of the libertarian at the leaf system are crazy right because the libertarians would say I get rid of the government let everybody do what they want that can't work that's crazy stuff right so the libertarians are they like freedom I like freedom they like you know the government not to be too intrusive I like that stuff too but everybody does so if you say you're libertarian but without the crazy parts it doesn't mean anything because the crazy parts are the libertarian parts likewise when I said I was left to Bernie there's nothing there when I said it but now the squad and AMC and Elizabeth Warren and Senator they staked out a place left a burning sort of you

[46:27]

out a place left a burning sort of you know they're more on Bernie than left of them but when I first started saying it it didn't mean anything which is what I intended I wanted people to say huh I don't know what that means so I might have to make up a new category simply for the purpose of allowing myself not to be branded anyway so this hippies describes me as a men's rights activist I'm not in a libertarian I'm not not even close all right did I have some other point on that I don't think I did somebody says I personally think you are a liberal I'm socially liberal so that part's true but on big policies they tend to be complicated and I'd like to look at them one at a time so I think the big mistake with being either a Republican and we're being a Democrat is that once you're on the team you feel you feel some

[47:29]

the team you feel you feel some obligation to defend even the weaker parts of your team it's just a natural human impulse so I try to avoid where possible any way associated with the team so that I can say well I like your tax rates but I don't like your health care or whatever so here's the question for you why did we stop talking about deficits why did we stop talking about the national deficits is it because it stopped mattering I don't think so did it ever matter before why did we stop talking about it do you know how you can solve every problem in this country except one run of the deficits you could solve every problem you could give everybody health care free college you can solve it all you'd only have one problem a debt you could never pay back so is it fair ever

[48:31]

could never pay back so is it fair ever to say that anything is going right in the country well the deaths going up at the same time can you make could you honestly say that whether it's Trump or Obama it doesn't matter what you're talking about can you honestly say the government is doing well if all of the things that are going well depend on this one thing which is a tragedy waiting to happen which is that or is it because remember for those of you who are not economists you may not be aware that national debt is very different than personal debt if you have personal debt you've got to pay it back and you've got to pay back not only the interest but you've got to at least start paying back the principal or it's a very short-term debt the only way you can get get away with not paying back to the principal is if it's a short-term loan let's say a year but if this long-term loan and it's a personal loan you're going to be paying off some some principal probably you can get away with

[49:32]

principal probably you can get away with or you can get away with putting it off but eventually you got to pay back the principal the government doesn't the government of the United States could say you know what well just we won't make any more debt but we're not going to pay it back either we'll just pay interest because over time inflation will shrink the value of that debt until it's not really important and then you can pay off the last little bit so if you did nothing as a government business but say we'll slow down the rate of our debt increase and that's it we'll just slow it down you'd probably get to the point where you could you can sustain it more easily so I don't know that anybody is smart enough not not Paul Krugman not me not anybody I don't know if anybody is smart enough to know where this debt stuff ends up I just don't know what it ends up now one way to look at the debt is that it's a stealth tax would you all

[50:33]

is that it's a stealth tax would you all agree with that would you agree that every time the government runs up the debt it has raised taxes on our future cells or some some number of our future selves would we all agree that that's true is there anybody you would disagree with that that raising the national debt is a stealth tax that somebody's gonna have to pay for and it'll be citizens
it seems to me that you know I think it was Warren Buffett who said you know we can always inflate away our debt by just printing more money if we need to so there's probably not a giant risk that will default especially since we have the biggest military in the world but then if it's a stealth tax who is it attacks on here's your next bonus question if running up the debt is a stealth tax who is it a tax odd answer

[51:37]

stealth tax who is it a tax odd answer it's a tax on people who have money because it's not a tax on poor people how are the poor people going to pay back the debt with their no money or not is it a regressive tax stealth tax well it's probably progressive because I would imagine that the people who have the most money are going to be asked to have the biggest impact on paying it back so it seems to me that when you rung up the debt you were effectively giving people free health care but not all of them you're effectively giving people free or inexpensive college education but not all of them you're basically taxing the rich to into I would say you're narrowing the the wealth gap I've never heard anybody talk about that but I would like to hear more people say that the debt is really just a tax so if you said to me as president Trump lowered your taxes or increase

[52:39]

Trump lowered your taxes or increase your taxes Scott I would say he has increased my taxes two different ways I live in California and because I lost the state deduction my taxes are up so the Trump administration raised my taxes as a rich guy who lives in one of the states that has a big state tax so if you lived in New York especially the city or California and you're rich your taxes went up minded the second way that Trump raised my taxes is by increasing the deficit no I don't know that that's a good idea or a bad idea and I'm not sure that any economist quite understand all that stuff but it raised certainly raised how much I or my my heirs will have to pay I would think on Monday I'm planning to have a special guest who's gonna be talking about some plans for building new and better cities

[53:39]

new and better cities ideally more efficient and lower-cost I believe and I've been saying this forever that the only way to address the national debt is to make the cost of living a pretty good life much less expensive which we know how to do it's just a design problem and so I imagine that you'll see lots of innovation there and I would say that in 20 years if you're let's say a lower middle class person you will find a way to have a completely satisfying life with health care and education and job opportunities but maybe you only make twenty five thousand a year and you have a perfectly good lifestyle I think we're heading toward a place where where the private industry will be able to offer those options but you have to design a city from scratch to make it work that way so you've got to design now all the enix all the expensive parts you know make it easy to get from one place to another make it easy to get food without

[54:41]

make it easy to get food without necessarily even having a kitchen somebody says middle class pays the highest percentage of taxes so I had a little debate online about the fairness of taxes and somebody said the rich may pay a lower percentage of their income but they paid more money because it's a small percentage of a larger amount which one of those is fair is it fair that rich people pay the most in a dollar amount or is it unfair because their percentage overall might be less than some middle class people which one is fair answer neither neither of them are fair there is no such thing as a fair tax there's no way to design the tax that everybody says all that's fair for me there that doesn't exist you can only be unfair in ways you can get away with that's it those are your only options fairness is a subjective concept and because we all have a different opinion

[55:42]

because we all have a different opinion what that looks like there is no way to get there it's it's a destination with no roads to it you can't get the fair all right
so satisfying somebody says wages were hired 20 years ago I don't know that wages were hired 20 years ago or the cost of living was much lower years ago remember years ago you didn't need to have cable because it didn't exist so I did you didn't need to pay cable you didn't need to pay for your phone your smartphone cuz it didn't exist didn't need to pay for your internet access cuz it didn't exist so there are a lot of things that were just cheaper back then and people had one car instead of two I mean if you think back if you could go back to those days that you imagine or the good old days you wouldn't want to spend five minutes there because it was a terrible you know life compared to today where you know

[56:43]

life compared to today where you know both parents have a car or they both have the opportunities to work and everything else all right yeah the the flat tax would be just a different kind of unfair tax because there's somebody who would complain it's unfair that's all you need which one is more fair interesting question so somebody says okay if both of them are unfair can you at least compare them and say that one of these is less unfair and the answer is no now you can't that's not a thing that there will always be people who think that whichever side is grossly unfair no matter what you can't change that
organ harvesting yeah I tweeted around more updated information that shows that apparently the Oregon harvesting from

[57:44]

apparently the Oregon harvesting from effectively live people that they executed in other words they kill them but keep them brain dead and live apparently to take out their organs and sell them because they sell for a lot and the report is that they're killing prisoners on demand based on organ demand I believe that the experts say that's that's now confirmed let me just think about that how could we have an ongoing relationship with China when they're literally using their minorities for parts I mean seriously someday someday historians will not look kindly upon us for doing business with China I think decoupling is going to happen but it might not be the government who does it in fact the best way to decouple from China is to not have your government endorses the the best thing would be if private industry just said whoa we're not going to build a new factory in the country that's using its

[58:44]

factory in the country that's using its minority population for parts alright so I think private industry will make their own decisions and decoupling I think is guaranteed because I don't see China changing so they're just gonna have to lose any new business but I would imagine the companies that are already there yeah I I've a softer opinion of people who've already put a lot of a lot of their resources there you know they might need to unwind it much slower rate
somebody's suggesting we put a gas tax on Eric's wall well finally something we can all agree on all right
pronouns have you started blocking people who have pronouns in their profile I heard somebody say that they said that if they see that you know the preferred profiles and preferred pronouns in their profile on Twitter they'll just block them and what

[59:47]

they'll just block them and what look at the people I have blocked there's a very high percentage of them have those proteins I don't know if that's the coincidence but I've actually been thinking about doing that because it it sort of sends a signal doesn't it it's a signal that you're gonna get a certain type of response I probably won't do that but it does signal that I'm not going to happen a legitimate conversation with somebody okay just looking at your comments oh yeah there's a there's a rumor that miss food who is essential to the whole rush occlusion story has disappeared and or maybe is dead somebody says your prednisone is showing I'll tell you it is it is somebody says there will be no decoupling oh I would argue that the

[1:00:48]

decoupling oh I would argue that the decoupling is already happening it will just be private companies not the government telling us to do it where is that beautiful perfect to Trump ad well I think you can see the Trump ad it's in my Twitter feed from a few days ago but you probably just google it it will probably pop right up alright I am going to end right here and I will talk to you all later