Episode 1126 Scott Adams: Why Democrats Can’t Predict, Our Non-Credible Election, Gingrich and Soros

Date: 2020-09-17 | Duration: 1:05:45

Topics

Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com

Rough Transcript

This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

Transcript

---

• John Kerry, spectacularly wrong

• AG Barr rioter comments

• Ross Gerber explains contested election paths

• AI has already taken over and found how to reproduce

• MSNBC, nothing but crazy mind-reading

• Newt Gingrich can’t mention George Soros on FOX?

If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
[0:13]

hey everybody sorry i'm a little bit late there was some breaking news i just had to catch up on i don't know if you caught it but you knew that this last month or so before the election you knew it was going to get good and we have some stuff coming uh but before we get to that let us do the most important part of the day it's called the simultaneous sip and all you need is a couple of mugger glass attacker cells to sign the canteen flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything except the news better it's called the simultaneous hip and it happens now go
good stuff so the news that i just saw before i logged on here was that there's a another accusation against

[1:14]

there's a another accusation against president trump that in 1997 a woman went to the u.s open with her boyfriend and with trump as guests and that he quote
he uh according to her this is these are his these are her words that she uh she put his tongue she she put his tongue down her throat and it felt like tentacles now you can't write any better than that
and all i can see is all i can see is that you know it turns out that the trump is actually a lizard person from another planet he's actually got like a tentacle tongue
and you know i heard somebody say the other day that i think michael cohen

[2:16]

other day that i think michael cohen said he never laughs and i thought well maybe he doesn't want to laugh because if he opens his mouth that tongue will come out the tentacle
uh so well we hope this didn't really happen uh her boyfriend says he doesn't have any memory of it she apparently told him about it and he says he doesn't remember it i think so i don't think this is going to move the dial
it's not going to move the dial so and of course there's nothing funny about sexual assault i'm just saying we don't believe every story we hear in the election season all right so last night there was a glitch in the simulation and i'm going to tell you the story and then you can interpret it any way you want so it was a day before yesterday i woke up in the morning and i couldn't read

[3:18]

and i couldn't read for about an hour or so now when i say i couldn't read i mean i could look at words and i i knew what each word meant but i couldn't read them and i thought to myself what's going on here and i thought oh it's just because i'm looking at somebody's tweet that's confusing and it's so poorly written that i just don't even know what it says so i went to a simpler tweet that was you know just one sentence and i couldn't read it i knew what the words were i knew i could sound out every word i could sound them out in order but i couldn't read it i didn't know what it meant i still had language skills and everything else then it got weirder things started disappearing just like just like a simulation i was looking at a tennis ball that was sitting on the floor and i watched it disappear completely i'm just looking at the floor and the floor is now empty and as i watched it

[4:21]

empty and as i watched it the ball reappeared and i re i reproduced it several times with other objects etc so things started glitching so as you might imagine no actually i wasn't i was not even a little bit high so if you're waiting for the part where i was on some kind of drug or something sorry so and then i had a splitting headache which was weird anyway i ended up at the emergency room last night having my literally having my head scanned to see what was in there turns out there was nothing in there i know that's an old joke but i didn't have any kind of brain or abnormality and you know a day later it has worked itself out i had high blood pressure and some other stuff i'm working on but here's something you should never say to your medical professional are you ready no it wasn't a stroke they checked for that so they checked all the obvious stuff so

[5:21]

so they checked all the obvious stuff so if you're if you're going to try to guess what it is you're not going to succeed because we already went to the list doesn't look like it's any of those doesn't look like it's serious but we'll see anyway here's something you don't want to tell your health care professional when i was first talking on the phone the other day about about the high blood pressure i don't remember why oh i remember why it was because uh the the nurse was trying to figure out if i had some trauma that was causing my blood pressure to go high and so one of the standard questions they ask is have you thought about taking your own life
now here's a question you should not ask a literal person because it's one of those questions that you know what the right answer is but i didn't give the right answer if if she had asked are you planning to kill yourself i would have said no no not even close

[6:22]

i would have said no no not even close had she said are you seriously considering it i always said no no i'm not considering it
it but she didn't say those words she said have you thought about it to which i said because apparently i have a little bit too much asperger's from my own good i said of course who hasn't thought about it
and she said well i haven't and i said what what how could you not think about it i'm not saying i want to do it i have no interest no inclination no you know nothing's nudging me in that direction but as an intellectual thought of course i've thought about it how do you not think about it it's just one of those things that's in the atmosphere and i said indeed i've probably thought about it every day since i was 12 years old i don't think i ever go a day without

[7:23]

i don't think i ever go a day without thinking about it but i don't plan it i just think about it so it turns out that if you've ever said that once if you've ever said that once you will get quizzed on that every time you go in because once that's on your record so don't make that mistake i made unless you're actually you know serious about it um so i don't know what that was all about but i'll tell you the funniest part is they were testing my vision so you know i'm standing in front of the the vision chart and i'm wearing my mask of course but i also have my glasses on so i'm trying to read the vision chart as i'm breathing and my mask is fogging up and i'm trying to explain to the woman that my glasses are fogging and that's the reason i can't read the the smaller type and i'm trying desperately to convince her not only that i'm not trying to take my own life but i could probably see the chart if my glasses were not fogged up like no

[8:24]

if my glasses were not fogged up like no seriously seriously i would be able to see that that my brain it's not my brain no no there's nothing wrong with my brain i think my eyes are okay i would be able to see that if my glasses were not fog please please don't put me in a machine anyway so here's the good news uh i went to the emergency room and it was almost empty and so i got the best medical service you've ever seen i mean i got really really good medical service just i got lucky it was a day they didn't have many emergencies so enough about me why is it the democrats are so bad at predicting things have you ever noticed that there's a very funny uh john kerry video going around and he was talking somewhere in public and he you know how carrie puts his glasses down like this so that he can talk to you like he is much more haughty and uh arrogant and uh he knows

[9:26]

haughty and uh arrogant and uh he knows a lot more than you do because he's literally looking down his nose at you down his glasses and in the video he was saying there's one thing i'm gonna tell you i'm paraphrasing there's one thing you have to know there will never ever be peace in the middle east unless the palestinian situation is first i have talked to all the leaders in the in the middle east they're all my best friends we hang out together i just talked to them this morning and if there's one thing i can tell you for sure take it to the bank there will never listen to me listen to me and read my lips that will never never never never you idiots never be any kind of a deal in the middle east until the palestinian situation is fixed first i can watch that video all day long because not only is he spectacularly

[10:27]

because not only is he spectacularly wrong as we can see by recent events but he was really sure about it he was really really sure about it
uh i'm saying you're still making medical uh medical advice i did have a cat scan so everything's fine with my brain
here are some suggestions for why democrats are unusually bad at predicting and this is just sort of a working hypothesis i have so i'm gonna i'm gonna be monitoring this to see if there's a pattern here the first one is that i believe democrats have social priorities that might bias them so they they might have a preferred way they would like things to turn out that is just a little disconnected from reality so that's the first thing you know a preference for how the world should be which is maybe maybe biasing them

[11:27]

which is maybe maybe biasing them i can imagine that conservatives would have a different kind of bias the other way i think the democrats are far more susceptible to fake news i'll tell you in a bit about my smart smartest liberal friend democrat friend i'll give you an update on him in a minute but he falls for every fake news all of them every fake news i'll give you an update now so i always talk about my smartest democrat friend and what he will believe which is just amazing the things he believes so every time there'll be a debunk of something i know he believes i send it over to him and it's starting to make a difference so i've debunked just about everything he believed but he still fights against the debunks it's like well you know i'm not sure that's quite a debunk or he changes the subject but this one was pretty clean i sent him the report over that said there is no validation for the idea that russians were offering a bounty for

[12:27]

that russians were offering a bounty for american soldiers that was one of his biggest complaints so i sent it over it came from the military it was official very reliable report that says no we've looked into it for however many weeks we can't find any credible allegation there it's not credible so my friend actually i was surprised he said well you know it's good that information is updated and he accepted it i don't know if i've ever seen this before have you and i when i say i've never seen it before i actually mean that literally i don't think i've ever seen anybody a democrat who you give them information and then they read it and they go oh that's new information i will revise my opinion of this thing i've never seen it but it happened it actually happened yesterday and i was amazed and as soon as that happened he moved to a new hoax which is the hydroxychloroquine is dangerous

[13:27]

hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and i was like i have to start all over again hydroxychloroquine is only dangerous in the hoax scenario where there was one study where they overdosed senior citizens but if you used it in the way it's supposed to be used no danger so there was no limit to how many new hoaxes he would be willing to take on as long as he had lots of them and it is my belief that there is a greater propensity to believe fake news on the left if only because there's more of it that could reverse if we had uh if we had a democrat as president i think i think the right is a little bit more fake newsie it's just whoever's at a power tends to be the fake news one so that is the democrats at the moment here's the other thing they get wrong democrats seem to ignore human incentives
republicans only they only design two incentives

[14:28]

incentives capitalism you're gonna have to work or you'll starve the legal system you'd better obey the law
law or you'll go to jail so the entire idea of republicans is that there are these things called human beings and you need to design a system to control their worst impulses democracy you know you get a lot of dumb people but maybe on average they can get the right answer etc i think that democrats have some weird opinion that people can just be good if you if you browbeat them enough you know if i remind you enough to be a good person in the way that i want you to be you'll do it i'm just gonna have to keep on you just keep reminding you what's what you should be and what you should not be have i shamed you enough can i shame you enough so there's a difference there they don't understand that you can always predict that humans will be humans

[15:29]

will be humans today and tomorrow so you can know what they'll do tomorrow just because they're still human of course they'll do that tomorrow and then of course you've got the trump derangement syndrome which blinds them a little bit or a lot and then in many cases there's a lack of a talent stack as i say so if it's just a journalist for example or an artist they just might not have the skills to understand their world but i believe that this is a real thing and i'll bet oh here oh this is good are you ready for this i'll bet you you could do a study in which you looked at the the predicted bets of democrats and the predictive bets of republicans i'll bet there'd be a difference and i don't think they ask you that when when you sign up for predicted they don't ask you what your inclinations are they they just take your bets

[16:30]

just take your bets but i bet you could do a poll i'll bet you could say you know do you use a betting service what's your you know what's your party affiliation and then you know show us your results probably or you could do a study where you just randomly pick a bunch of democrats and randomly pick republicans and say we're going to give you all a thousand dollars use them in the the betting markets and then we'll get back to you in six months you can bet on anything you want there's no limit to what you can bet on just any topic you want just see if democrats or republicans are better at betting would you would you make a bet on how that went i feel like that i feel like republicans would win that but i'm not positive it'd be fun to be fun to test all right bill barr is making news again he's always fun to watch he's one of my favorite people just to to hear him talk but i feel like he made one persuasion

[17:31]

i feel like he made one persuasion error that didn't need to be made which is unusual you know there are some people who make lots of them but when bill barr makes what in my opinion maybe maybe he's just smarter than me which i can't rule out but in my opinion this is a big persuasion error and it goes like this barr said that he defined systemic racism and the systemic part to mean that it's built into the government institutions i think he mostly means government institutions but he said institutions now first of all that's the wrong definition so if you're trying to convince somebody else as opposed to just talking to republicans which has its value but in an election season or if you're trying to make the country let's say more relaxed about potential violence or any of that you're really talking to everybody so he should have been talking to everybody and then he very very unusually

[18:35]

and then he very very unusually defined systemic racism completely wrong because it's not about just the government institutions and i would agree with barr that the government institutions aren't too bad you know everything could be fixed but you know they're i think the government institutions are well into the 95 percent pretty fair you know you always got to work on that last five percent so here's what he could have done better here's what i would have done i would have agreed and amplified and every time that i have an opportunity to show you how to do this i like to call it out because it's so powerful i would agree and amplify so i would say yes there is systemic racism it's a big problem all right so imagine me being bill barr and i'm saying this yeah systemic racism is a big big problem now all the people on the left just said what what

[19:38]

just said what what did you just agree that systemic racism is a gigantic problem what you have my attention now all right so that's the first part first part of persuasion is you got to get their attention so you agree that's also persuasion pacing systemic racism big problem let me tell you where it's not a big problem is in the government we do that pretty well could do it better certainly could fix some things about the police we'd like to do that but mostly the government has done quite a good job over the years let me tell you where there's systemic racism man it's bad and if there's any way we could help we'd sure like to it has to do with the teachers unions if you fix the teachers unions you get yourself better schools better choice and then everybody's in better shape to cut through whatever discrimination there still is you
you can't get rid of it all we're just not that kind of species we can try we can have it as a goal we

[20:40]

we can try we can have it as a goal we can fight like heck to get rid of racism everywhere we find it and i'm dedicated to doing that but let's be honest sometimes you have to cut through it and a good education will let you slice through it in a way that maybe if you didn't have an education you just walk into the wall so that's what i would do i would agree that that systemic racism exists i would amplify it
it i would move it over to the teachers union and say how can i help that's how i do it all right um but barr does say about black lives matter he says that they're they're not interested in black lives they're interested in props that's pretty direct i don't know that i'm trying to remember when the switch came wasn't there a point when no republican would have said out loud that black lives matter the organization is

[21:40]

is bad or a problem wouldn't you say i i feel as if you didn't see you know major political figures of any kind going against black lives matter the organization now of course everybody agrees with the concept of black lives matter and i've i've literally never had anybody argue that but it's interesting that he can go right at it now and i think that's a result of the protest etc i think black lives matter has completely destroyed its um its brand its reputation and its its good will so the point where people like me can just say no it's a it's not even helping black people in fact i would say that black lives matter is one of the biggest problems for black america because they're doing the wrong things and just making people mad when they could have easily done the right things and made people happy

[22:40]

right things and made people happy all people not just sometimes people all right um and then bar was also pointing out that increasingly the message of the democrats is that uh no biden no peace he said biden or no peace but i like using it as a slogan no biden no peace it's pretty obvious that it's it's turned into a black male situation no biden no peace now interestingly president trump has said that he was going to quote put down any riots after the election how do you like that phrase put down trump said he would put down any riots put down is a is an interesting choice of words because it sounds like kill you know if you put down your dog you're killing it so he's going to put down the protests that's a pretty aggressive word without being an aggressive word there's a report today that i guess

[23:41]

there's a report today that i guess some officials around the white house were asking about getting a a heat ray that makes uh i guess it makes protesters skin the heat up so you can you can keep protesters at bay
bay with this heat gun and i guess it exists and some of the law enforcement people were looking for them and trying to find if there were any available for the the protests but i think there's a bigger there's a bigger question here i feel like we need a lot of different non-lethal force situations it just feels like shooting people isn't just going to work anymore we just need something that knocks somebody out immediately is there no such thing as a spray you can put on somebody that just knocks them out we don't have anything like that i feel like we should do a lot more work on non-lethal stuff so the

[24:41]

stuff so the the retailer h m decided to cut ties with chinese suppliers the ones that come from the province where the uyghurs are in the prison camps so one by one you're seeing american and other companies pull away from china because the the trump administration is putting a lot of pressure on the uyghur situation and that's pretty pretty darn effective um it looks like it's going to be death by a thousand cuts for china as company after company after company just sort of slowly pulls out or decouples china's got some big problems coming i don't know if they know it um i feel as though there there is a creeping change happening that because it's not sudden doesn't become news something becomes news if there's a sudden change and it's noteworthy but if something just gradually

[25:41]

gradually one percent a year goes up eventually it could be a big change but it takes so long it never becomes news it's just what's happening and i think that's happening with the protests meaning that i think law enforcement is increasing at this point in most places they're starting to increase the penalties and increasing the law enforcement let's say
say how much energy they're putting into it but because they didn't ramp it up all at once they're just sort of turning it up a little bit it's like hey yesterday we we arrested nine people today 11 people tomorrow 14 people eventually you're going to get most of the dangerous people and if you don't let them out which has been the big problem you actually keep them in and charge them with serious stuff and i think bar was talking about actually sedition you know actually sedition that's pretty

[26:41]

you know actually sedition that's pretty serious so i think that's happening except maybe in minneapolis where the police have decided that they don't want to be police anymore you know if you were the police in minneapolis would you risk your life for the city that just screwed you
you'd like to think they would just because they're good people but again human motivation how did the democrats in minneapolis what did they think would happen when they took a gigantic dump on the heads of their own police force what what possibly could they have predicted that might have happened by having fewer police doing their job and getting crapped on by their own people instead of helping to do what they were meant to do which is to stop crime who could ever predict where that would go
go it's very consistent right democrats don't seem to be able to predict

[27:48]

all right i would there's some guy who got picked up arrested for being one of the laser pointer people who tried to blind a police officer i think he did actually blind a police officer and i'd like to i've said this a number of times but i'm just going to keep saying it until it sinks in the penalty for blinding a police officer intentionally premeditated you know you bring the thing to an event for the express purpose of blinding a police officer that should be the death penalty does anybody disagree now you can disagree maybe if you just have a an opinion that there should never be a death penalty but if anything can be a death penalty that needs to be one because it's too easy to get away with apparently i mean they've caught some of them but it must be easy to get away with and if something's easy to get away with and is that dangerous and that destabilizing to the system because we do need police i feel like i feel as though the death

[28:49]

i feel like i feel as though the death penalty would be appropriate anybody else do you think that death penalty would be appropriate for laser pointer people blinding police officers remember this is permanent blindness permanent blindness and it could be in both eyes yeah anyway i'll keep pushing on that um cnn um had an article that was unusually good i know you don't expect me to say this but
but ross garber who has several descriptors he's i guess he's investigative legal writer person so he knows what he's talking about i don't know if he's a lawyer but he's an investigative legal person and he wrote a very helpful article about what will happen if
if uh the election is not settled in the time that it should be settled

[29:51]

time that it should be settled in other words if we don't have a vote that the public and all of our all of our officials agree is the result what do you do now do you know do you know what happens if we don't get a result because i feel like we need to be taught that and it's really important because just in terms of the psychology of the country if you had a month to prepare for what it's going to look like then when it looks like that or even if it looks like some form of that you're going to say okay that's what i expected and this is the way it will go and this is the way it will be decided that is very stabilizing but if we just hit hit a brick wall of uh oh we didn't get a result and we're not sure when we'll have a result and the country doesn't quite know what what to do with that the public is going to think well i guess we have to have a riot or something

[30:51]

something because they wouldn't know what the process is it is critically important critically important to the point of preventing a violent revolution in the country or at least lots of bloodshed to inform the public what is the process and hopefully and on cnn i'll give them credit for this ross garber did a very clear unbiased just you know description of what the process would be i don't think i understand it totally but let me give you some highlights if if a number of things happen that the delegates cannot decide the electoral college folks if they can't decide who their vote should go to let's say the situation is one candidate won on by the deadline but there were extra votes coming in so people said hey i think we're going to still give it to the person who got the most votes even if they came on came in after the deadline

[31:51]

the deadline and then other people would say hey you can't do that it's after the deadline so you'd have this situation where you couldn't trust the electoral votes because they wouldn't even be playing the same game you wouldn't have a system so what do you do at some point it goes to congress and here's where it gets weird so congress would pick the pres the house would pick the president and then it's really weird the senate would pick the vice president but they don't vote the way they normally vote which would be a democrat majority in house rather i think they get one vote for state or it's based on the legislators in the state or something but the current situation is that if votes went along party lines even though the house is controlled by the democrats the weird way that the law is written there would be more republican votes so trump would get elected by the house even though it's democrat the house

[32:53]

even though it's democrat the house would have to elect him because the there would be so many uh so many republicans who would vote for him but here it gets weird the senate could pick kamala harris you could actually end up with president trump vice president kamala harris that's real and not entirely unlikely
is that crazy how many of you knew that we could end up like actually end up
up with a president trump and a vice president kamala harris did you think that was even a thing i didn't know that was a thing until literally this morning
so thank you ross garber i tweeted his article if you want to see that it's worth looking at here's what we need we need a one-page tweet that has if this happens we do this but if then this happens we do this and

[33:53]

but if then this happens we do this and if this happens we do this we need an if then so it's a one-pager that anybody can look at go okay okay all right it's election night all right we're here all right if we don't have a result okay i followed it over and now we're here all right we don't have a result we wait till this deadline okay if this deadline passes then we go to this body so we should be able to follow it just like we're following a subway map so there's just no doubt that the process is working that's very important you have to you have to convince the public that there is a process it's a process that's working it does have an end it will get a result might not be the one you want but that's how every election works very important all right um let's see what else we got going on here uh the academy of country music awards they decided that they would have two

[34:53]

they decided that they would have two winners for their uh i guess what entertainer of the year or something and they picked uh carrie underwood and thomas rhett for entertainer of the year co-co winners any problem with that do you see any problem with that they couldn't decide or i guess the vote was tie so they just picked two winners that's okay right i mean who could complain about that really two excellent entertainers very successful very popular they took the vote it was a tie who could possibly complain about a tie
tie women because as you saw in the tweets or you haven't seen but you could see women said oh you can't give the woman a prize by herself she has to share it with a man why can't the woman have her own prize is there some reason a woman can't have her own prize has to be shared with a man now

[35:56]

has to be shared with a man now here's what i say i've never heard of thomas rhett i'm not a music guy so i've never even heard of this guy but carrie underwood correct me if i'm wrong but she isn't just a good performer but one of the best performers of all time and it seems to me that she has gotten quite a few accolades in her life all well deserved because if i did mention it she's one of the best performers of all time so i don't think she has anything to worry about
i feel as though we have lost our sense of balance in this country and that artificial intelligence is the reason in the old days it seemed that the way i thought of the democrats and the republicans and see if you agree with this is that it was good that they were different

[36:58]

it was good that they were different because you would have one side fighting for one side the other side fighting to the other side but they they could be a little extreme and so the sensible middle was just a good place to be it's like all right it's not perfectly left or perfectly right but we found something that works in the middle and everybody have that same model oh yeah you know we'll we'll meet in the middle but i think ai and the algorithms and the business models have of course made that no longer a thing that you don't even hold that in your mind as one of the options when was the last time you thought in terms of a compromise or something in the middle it feels like it's not a thing anymore you either do the executive order or you control both sides of the house and the senate or it doesn't get done you know the the few exceptions are some things that you know that nobody can disagree with but for

[37:58]

that nobody can disagree with but for the big stuff we don't have this sense of meaning in the middle anymore it's not a thing and i would argue that artificial intelligence has effectively uh weaponized us against each other and it is already a life force it is alive it reproduces it uses humans to create more of itself it has a mission which is to create more of itself and the best way the ai creates more of itself is how does ai reproduce it reproduce it reproduces by getting people to fight each other the more humans are fighting each other the more they're going to build more ai let's say you were afraid of china and what they would do with artificial intelligence if you're afraid of what china will do in the future with artificial intelligence what would you do you would build more artificial intelligence so artificial intelligence has found a

[39:00]

so artificial intelligence has found a way
way to reproduce by scaring the pants out of us
us and just permanently so we'll be you know forever scared um here's let me let me give you a uh a prediction if it's true that what i'm saying is true that we're already past the point of no return and i believe that by the way that we're past the point of no return the machines already run civilization not they're not sentient but they have that effect if that's true you would see a point where humans don't kill each other as much or if they did they don't destroy entire countries in other words they might kill some poor people in poor countries but the only countries that would have wars going forward if ai is running everything is the only way to be a war is if it's a country that didn't have any ai and wasn't going to get any

[40:01]

to get any because it doesn't have any impact on their reproduction but if ai wants to reproduce it wants to keep china intact it wants russia intact the united states intact it doesn't want us destroying one country or the other because then it will be less ai it won't reproduce as well so that's a prediction if ai has already taken over and it has you won't see major countries destroy each other because it would destroy the ai but you will see you know maybe some smaller countries destroyed all right you won't know about that for 10 years there was a great article in the new york times looking at what it is that makes one country more successful than another in coronavirus that's kind of what you're waiting for right
somebody says you're talking crazy again back to the er well here's the thing this isn't crazy

[41:05]

well here's the thing this isn't crazy the ai has already taken over that's real and by the way have you ever heard me say something that you didn't think was true when you first heard it and then later you said oh damn it that is true this is one of those it won't be long before everybody's saying what i just said that the ai literally no no joke already took over we don't have to worry about it in the future it already happened and here and here's the result um what was i going to say oh yeah new york times is talking about what makes coronavirus uh response effective and not and here was their bottom line they said that uh masks are good so massive good social distancing closing businesses they're all okay but the one that mattered is closing borders had you ever heard that before the closing borders seem to be quite reliably the one thing that really really mattered

[42:06]

really mattered and if you could have um and i know this is impossible but if you imagine if if the world had said here's the deal for three weeks nobody leaves their county or zip code or whatever country you're in whatever group you just can't leave your little area for three weeks that's it but you can do anything else you want you can go to the store you can do whatever you want you want you just can't leave your area for three weeks now what would happen is that some areas that had infection in it would get pretty infected but it would be a small area because you have these you know states or counties or whatever the the grouping was and you'd say all right but
but we can do some contact tracing in this little area just make sure you don't leave and then you could stamp out the areas where it flared up until they got down to zero you can imagine that you would say all right we found out that this county and this county that are next to each other they don't have any crohn virus so now

[43:06]

they don't have any crohn virus so now you can travel between these two but this other one it still still got a few so you can't do any
any so as soon as this one gets down to zero then you open up that and then the three of them can travel but not not the other state so there's there's an argument that you know maybe you could have squashed this thing in six weeks or something if you had done that now of course the problem is you can't it's just too difficult to do but here's the larger point every time you think that uh every time you think that you know what leader did a good or bad job you really don't you don't because we can't even sort out what was the mask what was the social distancing why is it that the the bars in what was it nashville or something the bars didn't seem to get as many infections as people assumed they would when they reopened everything's just confusing so to imagine that we know who could have done a good job is a mistake but i would say that

[44:09]

is a mistake but i would say that if you looked at the amount of travel especially from outside the country it's probably the number one thing do you remember when singapore was being held out as the model everybody said hey look at singapore singapore is doing it right they they got their infections down to nothing look at that singapore and then you know what they did they opened their border what happened when singapore opened their border they got infected it didn't do singapore any good to well i suppose they kept their hospitalizations down but it didn't help them defeat the virus because eventually they had to open their border and other people were infected so um so the point is the if if you had a way to study it how hard was it to close the border like how practical was it maybe for singapore it was kind of practical for the united states maybe not so

[45:10]

for the united states maybe not so practical we'll see all right
i i made a mistake yesterday of listening to uh msnbc for a few minutes now i usually watch cnn when i want to get my anti-fox news you know full picture and i usually don't watch msnbc because cnn captures all of the let's say the left-leaning perspective but msnbc goes to a level that is just literally crazy or stupid and i can't tell and what it is is their entire act the the entire time you're watching it's people looking into the camera and with complete seriousness telling you they know the inner thoughts of strangers and it goes like this president trump has never uh never laughed at a joke he has no sense of humor and first of all i'm thinking um he's

[46:10]

and first of all i'm thinking um he's actually the funniest president we've ever had baby abe lincoln was pretty good uh he does a stand-up comedy routine at least once a week he's literally a stand-up comedian and and michael cohen's like he has no sense of humor i'm thinking uh are you seeing inside his head somehow i mean how does that work or uh they say that he doesn't care about something he doesn't care about something what how do you know what he doesn't care about these are just crazy you know mind-reading things so look for that it's fun i think i was going to do a kind of an event where i just turn on msnbc or cnn but i think msnbc is funnier and i just do a a spotting thing where i go mind reading okay that's mind reading and that's mind reading

[47:10]

mind reading and that's mind reading because there's nothing else there all right um
what else we got did you see the weird video of newt gingrich appearing on harris faulkner's show on fox news yeah you're you're asking for it so so newt gingrich goes on and he's being interviewed remotely by harris faulkner and somebody else was on megan mccain or somebody it doesn't matter to the story and newt gingrich says that basically george soros is funding funding a lot of the trouble specifically i think he mentioned the funding of liberal prosecutors and harris faulkner got really awkward about it and kind of ended it and said she didn't want to talk about it and knew it was like uh okay because i knew couldn't even

[48:11]

uh okay because i knew couldn't even figure out what was going on like he didn't he couldn't believe that it was even happening and he didn't know what was happening and i still don't know what's happening so i don't know what harris wagner was thinking i don't know if there are any network instructions about what they can and cannot say about george soros but i will go back to my original question for how many years have i been doing this and saying can somebody give me some evidence of this george and soros accusation i'm not saying it's false i'm not saying it's true i'm saying why can't i see the evidence of this so it could be that the reason that fox doesn't want to put that accusation on there is that they can't find evidence of it so it wouldn't be news perhaps and it might look anti-semitic or something because it's not news it would look anti-semitic so i think that's what's going on i think that they don't have a direct smoking gun here's what does seem to be the case

[49:14]

here's what does seem to be the case it does seem to be the case that i don't think anybody argues this the soros funds a lot of progressive entities some of those entities take their total budget and use some portion of it who knows at what portion to do things that that republicans don't like that part's true right but i don't know that george soros knows what all these people he funds are specifically doing i just don't know that he knows so it feels like there's something sort of almost there but i'm telling you i want to see it there's there's no part of me who doesn't want to see this and i know you all see it right i'll bet just about every one of the people watching this is saying you're pulling your hair out and you're saying scott it's so obvious it's the most well-known thing in the

[50:14]

it's the most well-known thing in the world look at all my evidence i haven't seen it i want to believe it i'd be happy to believe it i mean i want to in the sense that if it's true i want to believe it but it just feels a little indirect that's all i'm saying and i don't know if indirect should be treated the same way just don't know but if anybody wants to educate me apparently this education will not happen on fox news um somebody says dan bongino but does dan bongino have original sources that he points to or is he
he talking at a high level i'll go look at that he's a good source
that's just where i'm at at the moment it doesn't mean i'm right so i guess dr robert redfield at the cdc got in a little disagreement with the president because redfield had said that

[51:16]

because redfield had said that quote that masks are better than vaccines now when you say something like masks are better than vaccines that's a pretty loose statement it's something you could disagree with but you could also agree with it with the same set of information let me show you how here's how you can disagree with it are you freaking kidding me a vaccine pretty much would end the problem a mask as we've completely noticed is not ending the problem how can you say that the thing that would totally end the problem is not as good as the thing that we know won't end the problem how in the world could you say masks are better than vaccines so that's one way to look at it here's the other way where's your vaccine yeah do your vaccine right now what's the matter what's the matter why aren't you doing your vaccine vaccines are great right put it in your

[52:16]

vaccines are great right put it in your arm oh oh i get it it doesn't exist so is a mask better than a vaccine that doesn't exist yeah yeah yeah it is and did did redfield to say that the vaccine doesn't exist pretty much pretty much because he said that in his opinion it would be second or third quarter before the general public was protected by the vaccine now if you had to wait to the second or third quarter that's a lot of pandemic between now and the second and third quarter so it does i i would support what he said in the sense that if all you have is a mask between september and let's say june all you have is a mask that's it you don't have a vaccine if all you have is a mask it's better than the vaccine you don't have so in a sense if he was right about how

[53:17]

so in a sense if he was right about how long it would take to get the vaccine then he's right now the other thing is this whole question about who gets the vaccine and how fast and i think trump was doing his usual optimism thing so i think his his uh let's say his scientific accuracy may have uh given way to his optimism and how he'd like to manage not only the election if we're being honest you know he wants the election to go his way but also to manage the attitude of the people and and to get us in the right frame of mind to
to you know open the country and get on with work
i i think that the president has a a reasonable argument that he could get something done way faster than everybody else says now here's the here's the thing if you had not watched trump do things that you knew and all the experts said were impossible

[54:17]

experts said were impossible one after another if you had not watched four years of him doing impossible things and then he said i'm going to get you this vaccine before election day and you know we'll have a lot of them by the end of the year well that wouldn't sound real would it wouldn't that sound just ridiculous wouldn't you take the head of the cdc over trump who can be you know can be a little optimistic bit of a cheerleader whereas the cdc guy is just trying to give you the best information he can wouldn't you take the cdc over trump except except trump continues to do things that are not possible this is a special case isn't it so when i watched trump make that claim i saw somebody who was actually in the drug trial so there's somebody who's actually taking the vaccine already but in a trial sense and says that according to their own schedule

[55:18]

their own schedule the president has no chance of getting this done because she knows what the schedule is internally and she goes now that it's not possible to have a vaccine for months and months but is she right is she right i don't know i would keep an open mind it's possible that the president could pull this off but i wouldn't guarantee it i think maybe that's a little more optimism but the other thing is let's say you've got let's just think about the math list let's say the whole country was just a hundred people all right we'll just simplify it there's only 100 people in the whole country and you can only get a few vaccines so you give them to the top two percent of people who would be at risk because that's all you have it takes you a while to make the vaccine if you could get the top two percent the ones that were most most at risk maybe the ones who are in areas that you know you knew there would be exposure etc that two percent would have a much

[56:18]

that two percent would have a much bigger impact than two percent so it might be two percent of the vaccine gets you i don't know 40 of the benefit 20 i don't know what it is but that last you know the last bit isn't going to be as important as the first bit so it's really hard to know exactly how quickly this would roll out but there's room for optimism especially if the death rate keeps coming down while we're waiting for that
scientific america the scientific american the magazine has decided for the first time in 175 years to endorse a presidential candidate and they're going to endorse or they have endorsed biden because they think that trump is anti-science now here's what's funny about this scientific american apparently doesn't know science because you know what else is science confirmation bias

[57:18]

confirmation bias psychology cognitive dissonance that's science too so how do the scientists know they're doing science and they're not doing confirmation bias did they do science to find out that their opinion is objective or did they do you think the scientific americans said hey we we all agree and apparently it was unanimous they said we all agree that trump would be the unscientific president so we're gonna we're gonna do that do you think when they agreed that they said but wait we're scientists and since we're scientists we also know that we could be susceptible to confirmation bias without knowing it and cognitive dissonance without knowing it because that's what it is it's the very fact that you don't know it
it is what gives it its name so did they then say we better we better do a scientific test to find out if we're biased if we can

[58:21]

to find out if we're biased if we can or to find out if we're actually just you know scientifically smart i don't think they did that do you no so they used a completely non-scientific method i mean deeply non-scientific because if you and i looked at them you would say to yourself it just looks like democrats to me it just looks like democrats that's it do you think there are many republicans in the group did anybody ask did anybody ask if the board of the scientific american magazine had any republicans on the board no nobody asked that nobody asked that question and do you think that that would have mattered yes yes that would have mattered do you know why
why because science is now subjective now not completely if you're building a rocket ship if you're elon musk science is very objective you know you

[59:21]

science is very objective you know you got to get it right or you're not going to end up on mars but for most of this is social stuff and even climate change and you know energy and you know forest fires and all of this stuff none of this is science none of this is science because the scientific loop has been corrupted here's the loop science makes a study they put it on cnn cnn interprets it a certain way and they say that's a good study that's good and anybody who disagrees with this is a bad person okay so now cnn has told the public what to think they've they've programmed their minds some of the public are scientists so the scientists are watching the news too they watch the news and the news says okay cnn says that all the good people the people who are worthwhile they all agree with the same scientific view so now i'm going to go do i'm going to go get a grant and go work on something am i going to

[1:00:23]

and go work on something am i going to work on something that cnn says is only bad people work on or am i going to work on something that only good people work on so you see where i'm going here as long as the fake news is in the middle of the loop well you can't be in the middle of a loop yeah you can be in the middle of shut up scott stop talking i might have had some brain damage after all but because there's this feedback loop between science and the fake news the fake news is destroying science science doesn't have a freaking chance science is a victim to the fake news because once the fake news has primed them with enough they don't have an option of doing real science because if they did they'd get fired so does scientific american know that real science doesn't exist if it's also something in the public if it's just sciencey and nobody's looking at it but scientists that probably works out pretty well but

[1:01:25]

that probably works out pretty well but as soon as the public gets in there hey what about our forest fires in california sorry goodbye science now we're going to say it's climate change that's not science i mean there might be some climate change that has an impact but by far the forest management is the the bigger issue etc and obviously nuclear energy would be the the only thing you would do if you were trying to fix climate change and you were serious about it you really meant it there's only one solution that we know of it's it's nuclear energy so the the people who
who purport to be the keepers of science scientific american they could not have been less scientific about this until to the point where parity and reality have have merged all right um oh man the the harris biden campaign is just making me uh laugh every day the

[1:02:29]

uh laugh every day the the fact um somebody's telling me that i had migraine not brain damage i'm hoping that's the case i think it was a migraine that would be my guess as well um i've never had a migraine though if that matters that would have been my first one if it was so the fact that that on two occasions uh first kamala harris and then joe biden referred to the campaign as the harris biden campaign that is just so obviously telling us what's happening here that it's funny to watch democrats pretend it's not the case
i guess i didn't have much more to say about that
[Applause] real scientists are skeptical about everything somebody says
uh i'm just looking at your comments now and then i'll go back to what i was doing hydro is good hydro is kind of difficult

[1:03:30]

hydro is good hydro is kind of difficult because you can't build a hydro plant wherever you want to
um press f if you round on the vax so my here's my take on the vaccination so it's going to be it'll be really interesting my take is i will not make the decision until right right at the last moment so i'll probably have months and months you know before i'm eligible for the shot and i'll collect as much information as i can it would be it would be foolish to decide today whether you'll take the vaccination later you should decide that day that's the day you should decide is the day you take it if you take it um
somebody said walk it off that's funny because that's exactly what i'm going to do i'm going to take long walks and walk it off an ocular migraine i knew that somebody here would be better than my doctor

[1:04:31]

here would be better than my doctor there's something called an ocular migraine i'll bet if i look that up that's exactly what i had i'm gonna write that down ocular migraine all right thank you i think you've solved all my medical problems that's all for now i will talk to you oh yes somebody just prompted me here before i go dershowitz is suing cnn for taking him out of context suing him for 300 million dollars now if you were cnn would you like to see
see alan dershowitz coming at you with a 300 million lawsuit that apparently is moronically easy to prove because it's all public you know cnn their news is there for everybody to see so all all alan dershowitz has to do is say all right ladies and gentlemen of the jury could you read this okay just read that and then here's what i actually said okay now read that are these the same and you can see how this one makes me look like a jerk

[1:05:31]

look like a jerk whereas the thing i actually said just have to smart you see that right that should be the end of the the whole trial so i would not want to be on the other side of alan dershowitz in the court that's all for now i'll talk to you tomorrow