Episode 1537 Scott Adams - Trump Gets His Own Social Network. That Means Good Content Today

well well well well look what just happened can you believe it yeah what i'm talking about is that you all showed up here on time for what will probably be the highlight of your whole life today's show yeah you know the rest of your life might have had some good highlights like let's say you know your wedding or the the birth of your children you know those are good too yadda yadda but this this is meaningful this is the best thing that's ever happened in any universe in any metaverse virtual ar or other period it's called coffee with scott adams and nothing is better than it and if you want to go to yet another level go to another level yeah who wants to take it to another level all of well you you need is a copper mug or a glass a tanker challenger steiner canteen jogger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better especially your antibodies yeah it's true one sip of coffee will enlighten your antibodies give them a little energy if you have uncaffeinated antibodies well you're just naked it's like walking around naked let's give some caffeine to those antibodies go can you feel them being a little bit more active i think you can i think you can goosebumps wow you can feel those antibodies now waking up it's true they go to sleep at night but now they're awake well here's the biggest news uh looks like it's gonna rain now that doesn't seem like big news to you wherever you live well i live in california and it's gonna rain oh god that's good news apparently it's gonna rain a lot like a ton of rain coming our way like lots and lots of rain well we can't get enough and that's good news so i like it when problems sort of solve themselves do we have any yeah oh sure there might be some mudslides pessimists pessimists like how about mudslides yeah there might be mudslides but i'd rather have water well here's the fake news you ready for the fake news cnn has a good dose of fake news i'll read the what they wrote and then you tell me what is the fake part okay what is the fake part of this news cnn says a booster dose of the pfizer blah blah coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy can we all i gotta take a little aside road here can we all agree on one thing i know we're there's a lot of uh division in the country might even be a little division on this live stream but if there's one thing we can all agree on please it's that pronouncing the word efficacy is really fun it makes you feel good when you say it makes you feel smart try it try it at home just say out loud efficacy yeah yeah did you feel it it's not like other words it's fun to say and it makes you feel like you're really on top of your game if you can pronounce efficacy you know nicely you look like you're well practically a scientist now you're not any virologist probably but you just learned to say efficacy just right well anyway back to my story of fake news from cnn a booster dose of the pfizer blah blah coronavirus vaccine was found to have a high efficacy of 95.6 percent um and that's in the phase three trial and the company announced that the efficacy was consistent irrespective of age sex race ethnicity and co-morbid conditions oh i like this new word comorbid conditions because i've been saying comor comorbidities comorbidities is a cool word it's no it's no efficacy i think we can agree on that but i like saying it so i'm going to say comorbid conditions now to make me sound smart all right what's the fake news what's the fake news anybody anybody what's the fake news i'm going to take it as true let's see i will stipulate that the 95.6 efficacy is accurate but what's the fake part where's the fake news come on you know you know where it is nobody really i thought this would be would be easier all right um let me tell you it's not the day one efficacy that anybody cares about am i wrong who is it who is really obsessing about day one efficacy it's not a day one efficacy story it's a how fast does it wear off story am i wrong the story is how long it lasts and that's not in the story because obviously they can't know that because it's new this is the this is just disgusting fake news because they've they led you to believe that the thing they told you is the important thing and it's not it's not i mean it's great that the efficacy is that high it's actually impressive and whoever came up with this uh let's say kovind shot i don't like to call it a vaccine for reasons you understand but it's still a miracle i mean if it does this it's kind of a miracle so it's it's amazing but you know assuming it doesn't kill you but um i feel like they they didn't tell us the actual story because that's the part that matters how long it lasts now they don't know but i feel like they have to at least mention it all right um how many of you saw me interview bjorn lomborg so i did that not on a live stream i did it on a recorded interview so i could have a proper two screen situation without technical problems and that's that's posted now on youtube so just search for uh if you just search for bjorn lomborg and my name it'll pop right up and you really should take the time you should take the time look at the other comments you'll see that people enjoyed it a lot and very similar in uh let's say in theme to a lot of things you see from michael schellenberger sort of the the smarter way to look at climate and nuclear energy and stuff like that but lomborg's been saying this for i don't know a long time he's been on on this for a long time and he's just a great explainer so if you want to see somebody who understands statistics and business and risk management you gotta see lobborg right so i don't like let me let me say this as clearly as possible i don't really enjoy interviewing other people because the fun part is when i'm talking but i'm also completely aware that you're not in it for my fun you know you don't watch this because i'm having fun you you're looking for some benefit for yourself quite naturally and it does seem to me that the especially the author interviews let me get can i give some um i need some career advice let me take a pause here i need some career advice and this is serious this is serious questions career advice i don't love interviewing authors because of the homework you kind of have to read the book right i mean you don't have to but it's it's a reasonable courtesy and expectation especially if it's a recorded interview and you're just going to do that with the author you kind of got to read the book so reading books and then interviewing people is i don't know 10 times harder than what i like to do every day which is this i don't know if you can tell but i would do this just for fun literally literally this experience is just purely fun for me but the author interviews take more concentration and work however i think they're more useful all right here's the part that i can only say in public because i have no sense of shame whatsoever which is a big advantage in life i'm going to say something that nobody should say out loud if they had any sense of dignity or shame or you know self-preservation all right i'm just i'm just going to say it out loud i think i'm the best in the world at interviewing people you're just gonna have to deal with that for a moment now i don't know that to be true right if i had certainty about it i'd be crazy but based on my uh experience of just interviewing a few people i don't think anybody does it the way i do it and i think it has more to do with the way i do it than you know some natural quality i possess or something like that so it's not so much about me being awesome and that's the part that keeps people from saying something like that in public i actually think i might be the best in the world with this and i don't know why exactly could be that i i don't have as much partisanship it could be that the windows that i use to look at things are a little bit different or something somebody says joe rogan is hard to beat let me make a statement and i'll leave no ambiguity here whatsoever i'm way better than joe rogan at interviewing people it's not even close joe rogan is a show in which you know you've got three hours of content and he's great at it you know maybe the best ever maybe the best ever if you just look at his success and his audience and the impact he has i think you could say joe rogan's show is the best ever of you know anything in that genre but in the narrow question of just doing an interview you don't do a three-hour interview you can do three hours of content yeah i mean he does that great but an interview needs to be shorter right so if you're just going to do one one interview 45 minutes is a lot for an interview a narcissist compensates with false bravado oh you're talking about somebody else not me but you can call me a narcissist too that would be fine but just be specific i'm a grandiose narcissist not a vulnerable narcissist well as far as i know i mean couldn't be wrong about that but as far as i know i'm i'm the kind of narcissist that likes to get stuff done and then if i get credit for that that's great i like it but i but i need to do things that are legitimately useful for other people or i don't get anything so moving along all right i see your comment um but what was the answer then should i do more author interviews one question and then i'll move on should i do more author interviews local's platform says absolutely yes yes yes away for a moment youtube's a little mixed no no yes no ah yes yes yes no no no okay in a question like this only the yeses matter here's a little uh tip for you about how to judge public opinion on entertainment stuff this is a really good tip learn this and you'll you'll have something to take with you so i'm looking at the youtube messages and it's a mixture of yeses and no's so what should that tell me about whether i should do this it's an absolute yes based on the feedback because it doesn't matter how many people say no this is the key learning it doesn't matter how many people wouldn't watch it it has nothing to do with whether you should do it the only thing that matters is how many would because there's a lot of people if if five billion people hate you but a billion people love you you're in a pretty good position if you've got a billion people on your side even the 5 billion hate you so it has nothing to do with how many people don't want to watch you irrelevant all right um yeah so also i was on uh viven barnes yesterday you should google that that was a lot of fun if you missed me on viva and barnes you're going to want to at least stay for how i addressed the first troll who had a comment because i might have lost my i might have lost my composure so if you like if you like to watch things where people lose their composure you want to watch that one you might like it well the big news today is that trump is launching a social media network called truth social media they're saying that so far it's uh they're opening it up for beta beta users so so trump's network will be open for beta users um there is some suggestion that later conservatives will also be able to use it but for now apparently you have to be a beta to use it um so i said it was just all mostly democrats i don't know am i reading too much into this oh oh oh a beta i'm sorry i misinterpreted this it's it's the technology is the beta it's the technology that okay i thought it was just for betas um one of my weirdest predictions might be about ready to come true i'm not sure yet so i don't have confidence in it but here's one of my weirdest predictions trump would lose money as president and make it back after he was out of office and and ten times more so when everybody said uh i think running for president is really bad for your company and it was it was terrible for the trump uh company i assume you know it's a private company but one assumes looking from the outside it was just terrible for business but now he's launched this new media platform i assume he has equity right has anybody seen any reporting on the degree of equity that trump has versus his partners i don't think i've seen that but one assumes he has you know a good chunk of equity and what is the best way to become a multi-billionaire in the united states it's this somehow trump managed to have equity in the type of company now we don't know if this one will work per se but in the type of company that makes you a multi-billionaire right away he could be one year away from being one of the richest people in the country again and i i always assumed that he would find a way to monetize you know his reputation and everything else and maybe this is it you know you you can't really bet on any newish platform succeeding i think the odds are always against it but he's bringing something that nobody ever brought before which is himself and if people just sign up just so they can see what he's saying imagine if he runs for president which seems likely and the only place you can see the good stuff is on his his platform you have to sign up right if the only place you can see his like extra good stuff is on his own platform every reporter has to sign up basically every pundit everybody who watches you all have to sign up so he does have kind of a perfect setup which doesn't mean it's going to succeed but the setup is kind of perfect i've already put in my name so there's a site where you can go to to sign up to be invited or not so i put in my name i was looking at the uh michael schellenberger tweet talking about greta tunberg who was quoted in the past as saying quote i want you to panic so greta and of course other people literally wanted people to panic about the climate change stuff and unfortunately i think they succeeded it looks like they succeeded in getting people to panic so sort of a be careful what you wish for a situation because um i've said the best i've said the best situation if climate change is really as dangerous as people say or any version of it is um you need a little bit of panic don't you like there's some productive amount of fear that gets you to do the right things so you're not in trouble in the future but maybe we overshot the mark we may have over panicked it's hard to know what is the exact right amount of panic well i think it's time to fire pete butterjudge um and i'm i'm reasonably pro-booted judge and i'm also reasonably not reasonably i'm pro-paternal leave right wouldn't want to threaten you know the the idea that people can have you know parental leave um but at the same time it is maybe the biggest problem in the country and i don't think anybody's in charge are they is anybody in charge i saw on twitter somebody saying that the the secretary of transportation is not really the person who's the right person to fix the the trucking slash problem is that true can somebody tell me that just the first question is is buddha judge does even have the portfolio and the power to be in charge of this problem because that's a good question right and if it's not him who is it and if we don't know who it is and it's the biggest problem it's not the president the president doesn't seem involved in any way who's working on the biggest problem i feel like bootage has taken some responsibility for it hasn't he somebody says power yes but portfolio no i think that's the right answer i think the answer is that buddha judge could take control of it you know he could sort of uh i'm sure he could get by them to assign him the job of you know transportation czar of trucking and logistics or something so i i think you're right that maybe is his job description is not exactly on point but in a crisis it seems like he would be the one that you'd pick now let me ask you this if trump were president how would this supply chain problem look different i feel like trump would have solved this by now i also feel a hashtag coming on it's a little too long but something along the lines of trump would have solved this by now because it you know look at the the border problem trump would have solved that by now there are a few things that we see that just look like obviously trump would be the better choice if only because he would be engaged and biden doesn't seem to be look at what trump might have done right we're just speculating here because we don't know but here's something he might have done trump might have fired somebody right he might have fired somebody i don't know if that's buddha judge or somebody else but i think you have to fire somebody like i feel like it now maybe there's nobody who's quite on point to be the right one to fire but if there's nobody to fire then at least you need to pick a czar to be in charge so you have somebody to fire later right i think trump would have written some executive orders to override some any state regulations that were slowing things down and now i've heard things such as there are not enough trucks because of environmental concerns of old trucks in california do you think trump couldn't solve that problem one eo just says well temporarily you can use any truck you want just temporarily because it's a crisis you don't think trump would have done that just signed something that says temporarily we're not going to worry about california's regulations now it could be that the trucks just don't exist you know maybe the older trucks have been decommissioned and whatever else so maybe there's just no play there i don't know but why don't we know that because nobody's in charge there's nobody in the government who says i'm in charge let me give you an update here's what we're doing here's what's wrong we've identified the problem here's the solution we're working on it might take us a little time but we've identified the problem somebody's in charge and here's the solution we we think will work where is all that right where's all of that at the very least i think a trump administration would be keeping you up to date on what the hell is happening or even tell you what the problem was so i've been asking everybody for days now describe what exactly is the problem and luckily people who are well informed the number of people who work in the field and are involved with logistics some of them you know have interviewed employees at the docs and with all this information finally finally i got really clear detailed answer to why things are slowing down unfortunately all of the really clear detailed answers of why the supply chain isn't working were different that's right lots of experts waiting people really know that they're actually working on it right now the people in the field doing logistics doing the shipping you know unloading them the people who are close to it they really know and so they told me what the problem was lots of them all different what's that mean what's it mean when everybody knows the problem but they'll have a different answer what's that mean well the the smallest amount it means is that there's something going on you know what it feels like i don't think it is so don't take this as a conspiracy let me tell you what it feels like tell me actually see if anybody else says the same thing what what does it feel like is the problem not really you know there's no evidence of this but what's it feel like boom uh tim amaka on locals got the right answer war it feels like when the twin towers got hit with airplanes and he didn't quite know who was doing it or who was behind it it feels like war specifically let's see if you can take it to the next level so war is the right answer take it to the next level give me another detail on that somebody says china give me another detail all right i'm not i'm not alleging this all right there there's no allegation i'm just saying how it feels there there's one thing i'm looking for here i haven't seen it yet there we go somebody got it i knew i knew you'd get it uh david i think david said it first on locals uh it looks like a cyber attack i'll i'll even take it to another level uh i'm accepting cyber as you know close enough looks like an ai attack yeah what did that just do to your brain right first time you heard that i don't think anybody else has mentioned it this feels like an a.i attack so it feels like now i would not allege that because i think you'd you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to say that but if we ever get an ai attack what's it going to look like it's going to look like a whole bunch of things seem to stop working right at about the same time it's going to look like we can't quite identify the source of the problem but our systems aren't working the things that used to be smooth just stop being smooth and we don't know why now again let me be very clear i'm not alleging that this is some kind of a ai attack i'm only alleging that it would feel and look exactly like this i don't think you'd know you'd be attacked when you think of an ai attack you think they're going to turn the lights off or you think they're going to you know break uh the hydroelectric dam or something you know you think of it like a terrorist attack but i think ai would attack without telling you they're attacking what's the point of having artificial intelligence if if it's dumb right you don't want dumb ai that's no good a smart ai i wouldn't tell you it's attacking would it it'd be a sneak attack so an ai attack that you know was worth anything would be a sneak attack because you don't want um you don't want some kind of a response what did i do to your brains today because the for the first time you realize that and again i'm not saying this is an ai attack the first time you realize that this is what it would look like and how it would feel is disconcerting isn't it pretty disconcerting now let me add a little meat to that the way an ai attack would work would be just to hit enough systems that are related to the same process in this case the supply chain to have enough misinformation and enough persuasion just inserted at the right points there's several things seem to be breaking at the same time and you wouldn't know why just a little everything's just a little bit broken you know nothing exploded just everything's a little bit broken and then the supply chain just goes crazy all right um newsweek had a story today in which they referred to the fine people hoax but linked to an article that seemed to treat it like it was true now i was informed that newsweek did in fact put the clarifying statement in there that trump said he wasn't talking about the neo-nazis but in in its entirety and with the link they're still spreading the fine people hoax in 2021 the most debunked hoax of all time still being at least couched in a way that they're making it look like maybe it was true based on the linked linked article and so i said to myself how could you not know that in 2021 so i googled it google uh you just use google and google find people hoax and put a plus in front of hoax so you make sure that an article should comes up that says hoax do you know what will come up articles that say it's true and don't have the word hoax in now i only did this quickly so i didn't confirm this but i think that's true i think the top searches for the thing that requires the word hoax to be in it don't have the word hoax in it you have to go down pretty far to get something from politico or from me right try it yourself and just can somebody confirm that so this is an unconfirmed claim i'm claiming because i didn't open all the articles but i doubt those articles had the word hoax in it i kind of doubt it they it feels like they're artificially pinned to the top not sure but it looked like it all right so um do you know robert everybody know robert reich economist and uh democrat and he's a super partisan you know tweeter and pretty active on social media and here's my problem with him i think it's because he's an economist that i have more problem with his bias than i do with other people's you know if you see a politician or somebody's working for a politician or clearly an activist and they say things that are just amazingly biased and one-sided and basically just looks like a lie you say to yourself well they're a politician or they're working for a politician and you you sort of discount it as being just ridiculous but when when a famous you know at least notable economist says something you you try to think well you know at least maybe he's right about that but he is so insanely biased that it just disgusts me when i see his tweets because i hate to see somebody who's an economist uh like throw his entire profession under a bus if you're an economist and you can't treat things objectively you need to give your degree back right you should just give it back because you didn't earn an economics degree if you can't even attempt to be a little unbiased all right so he tweeted he said there's something talking about the uh the bill to uh strengthen the voting rights that got rejected so congress rejected it but there were enough people to have gotten a majority but not enough to beat a filibuster i think most of you are well educated on the process but if anybody isn't most bills you could get passed with a simple majority you know 51 percent or whatever but for some things you need more than that you know a super majority if you're trying to be a filibuster the filibuster is just one party usually i think always the minority party uh just trying to use the procedural right to talk forever to delay things until you know you can't get anything passed and righteous things he says he tweets there's something terribly wrong with the system that allows 41 senate republicans representing only 21 of the country to block voting rights legislation supported by nearly 70 percent of americans the filibuster must go god he's so slimy i so slimy all right here's the problem with this how many of americans actually understand what's in the voting rights bill what do you think he says 70 are in favor of this bill how many you think know what's in the bill zero zero because democrats always make complicated bills that you can't understand the infrastructure bill 3.5 trillion how many americans knew what was in that zero how many people know what's in the uh the voting rights bill none none nobody so robert reich you slimy piece of you know suggesting that somehow 70 of americans wanting this or wanting voting rights in general is somehow in favor of this specific bill this is not the case and you know it so when i see somebody lie i mean this is just well lies may be the wrong word here let's say persuade in such a biased way it just discredits economists and i hate that you know the economists certainly not right all the time but they don't need this all right so it appears that democrats have a two-pronged strategy uh and uh that's that's pretty interesting the first prong is to get rid of the filibuster now you're hearing a lot of talk about that right so democrats are the party in power but they can't get things done because of this darn filibuster the republicans keep using so step one is a lot of democrats want to get rid of the filibuster step one is their clever plan step two of their plan is to botch one thing after another until the party empowers the republicans so step one give whoever the party in power is all the power and by getting rid of the filibuster step two make sure that the other party is in power and has all that power with no filibuster isn't that what's happening am i wrong i'm not wrong right that they explicitly have those two goals well the first one is explicit get rid of the filibuster but it does look like every single force is suggesting that the republicans will retake power right i mean at least congress in 2022 so shouldn't getting rid of the filibuster be really close to the last thing they would want right now i know how can you support a party that has this as their plan to give all the power to the other side i'm not making this up you're seeing the same thing i see right you there there's no there's no debate on these two facts democrats want to get rid of the filibuster many of them the ones the ones we see talking public at the same time it's pretty clear that the performance we're getting of the democrats will put republicans in power they know that too don't they don't they know that maybe they don't all right so here's cnn helping the public understand what's in the bill finally you know it's a complicated bill with a lot of stuff in it and i'd like to understand it better and so for the benefit of my viewers here i'm going to read cnn's description so that all of you will finally know what's in this complicated bill are you ready this should answer all of your questions um as written the current compromise version this is one mansion put together of the bill would establish national rules for running elections sounds good limit partisanship in the drawing of congressional districts looks good looks good and forced the disclosure of many anonymous donors who spend big to influence elections i like that pretty good pretty good other provisions were aimed at alleviating concerns from local election officials who worried that the original bill would have been too difficult to implement okay so they simplified it good and some new editions were aimed at insulating non-partisan i don't know what that means blah blah blah it also included a number of changes sought by mansion blah blah blah including a provision that would limit but not prohibit state voter id requirements do you think you know enough about the bill now to have an opinion no no not even close basically cnn's just sort of like brushing the top of it they might as they might as well have named uh the parts of the bill awesome things that everybody loves how would you like a bill we're going to fill it with awesome things that everyone loves oh don't ask the details no don't ask about the details don't ask how it will be implemented what the what the cost of it is what the side effects will be and how it will distort anything don't ask that it's just called the awesome bill that everybody loves with things in it that you want that's all you need to know don't give us all this details about what's good or bad about it or all that it's just the awesome bill that everybody loves and then democrats can get everything they want so there is a reason that our system is a republic do you remember what it was anybody anybody why is our system a republic and not a pure democracy this this this is why because the public can't understand this stuff so if our elected officials um go in there you know they have a better chance of understanding it that doesn't work so well either but uh yeah there's a reason we're a republic did you see the video of jeremy raskin democrat interrogating republican matt gates about the january sex stuff it's it's a pretty good clip so if you get a chance i think i tweeted it today so rascal is really going hard at matt gates challenging him to does he believe that trump won the election or not now to his credit matt gates is i don't know if you know this but he he was a i think he was like a state champion uh on his high school debate team i may have the detail of that wrong but something like that like matt gates is super good at debating things and holding his own and exactly this kind of situation however um i think i think he blew his his chance on this he did better than most probably a top five percent answer better than most yeah and and certainly showed showed that he has the uh you know the the chops to be in that situation but i feel like here's how i would have answered it okay so raskin i'm gonna paraphrase you know the the thing but essentially raskin was saying you know all these courts rejected the evidence so how can you say that maybe the election wasn't fair when so many courts rejected all the evidence now what matt gates tried to do was suggest that courts are not the right tool for evaluating the claims because most of them were rejected on grounds of you know whether it was an appropriate what's the right name appropriate whether the courts were the right vehicle for the complaint what's the word standing yes standing so the complaints did not meet the legal legal standard for standing meaning that it wasn't the right people taking the right to complain to the right court is that is that close enough it wasn't the right people taking the right kind of complaint to the right court so we never had a situation where the right people took the right complaint to the right court although sometimes i think they did but in general a lot of things were rejected by standing so matt gates tries to give that answer how was that answer true so matt gates answers was accurate and right on point also a complete failure persuasion-wise so being accurate and being right on point and being confident and all the things he did right because he did a lot right not even close to being good enough here's what good enough would look like you ready put me in matt gates's chair jamie raskin says you know scott adams that no court and he lists the number of courts and the number of claims and if they've all been turned down he said what do you what do you think about that scott no court no court here's the right answer i'd like to understand your question better uh mr eskin there seems to be an embedded assumption in your question i just need a clarification can i get a clarification on the question are you suggesting that the courts would be the right place to evaluate the claims and raskin would say something like um um you know all these courts rejected it they all rejected it he'd probably just repeat himself he'd say yeah i know i heard that part and and i agree with everything you're saying but i'm looking for your assumption is your assumption that the courts were the right vehicle to evaluate claims because the court said they weren't you know all the ones you're mentioning are you aware of that mr reskin i just need a clarification you're aware that the court said they're not the right vehicle for this right so i'm a little confused why you're asking the question were you not aware of that right you could basically end raskin right there but you have to do it by asking him for clarification because you need to put him on his heels here's what matt gates got wrong he entered raskin's frame he entered his frame raskin painted a box and then invited you know linguistically he painted a box and then invited matt gates to get into his box which was a kill box and matt gates walked right into the kill box well armed well armed because maggie's is really really good at this stuff but he walked into the kill box don't walk into the kill box never never don't enter his frame you gotta break his frame he he offered a frame you say i need a clarification on that because there's an assumption that embedded in your question that that i need to understand because my assumption wouldn't make your question make sense but maybe you can explain it to the public why the courts didn't think they were the right vehicle for this but but you still do is there something that you know that all those judges don't know jamie rescue i mean or jeremy there were what 60 some judges who all think that they were not appropriate vehicles for this question but you still think they were i better explain that see where i'm going okay how many of you think my answer would be better you know you can be brutal you can be brutal if you think it doesn't it's not even close right now let me ask you another question except for the part where i would never run for president because you know i don't want them looking into my life and tearing me apart there would be a suicide mission i could be president because there is a skill set for this sort of stuff that i possess matt gates has that skill set like really really good but you know he got taken down by by the media so far i don't know if he'll recover but he doesn't have he doesn't have my level you know i i would put matt gates as a eight and a 10 on communication which is higher than almost everybody but i am a 10.

i am a 10.

there are 10s i think trump's a 10.

trump's a 10.

absolutely and i and let me be clear it's not because of some genetic quality i possess i'm not saying i'm good at this because i'm somehow born born with talent no it's it's a skill it's literally just a skill you can study i've studied it anybody who'd studied it as much as me could do what i do let me give you an example uh the same problem you know uh let's let's take mike cernovich by the way if you don't know i use him for all my examples for some reason he fits every example like story i don't know why but there's something something about the nature of him that he fits lots of stories if mike cernovich wanted to be president again you'd have to subtract out whatever you know things the press would talk about in his past so neither he nor i are really legitimate possibilities for the president but does he have the skill set to do what i just told you matt gates should have done yeah it does how much would you like to have seen mike cerdovich answer jeremy raskin's question in public it would have been different it would have been different yeah you can you can uh talk about all the reasons that he or i are unqualified for other reasons but communication wise uh he's a ten all right supply chain yeah trump would have fixed this by now i i feel like there could have been a uh a warp speed version for trucking i do think that the the number one reason i get for the supply chain problems is that there aren't enough trucks and truckers you don't think trump would have already spun up a warp speed for trucking and how hard could it be how hard could it be to do warp speed and say uh well we got a problem here but in three weeks you can have a ton of trucks and truckers there are definitely enough unemployed people who want jobs you could definitely temporarily give them you know emergency pay to make it worthwhile you could definitely get people who would be willing to be trained because you know maybe the training is free because right now i think you have to oh correct me if i'm wrong i need a fact check on this everybody i need a fact check on this trucker school costs money that people don't have in other words there are a lot of people who want to be truckers but they can't afford it because the trucking school costs money how do i know that how does scott know that trucking school costs money and the people who might want to be truckers don't have that money the reason i know that is i once paid for somebody to go to trucking school do you know why i did because there was no way in the world that he ever could have gotten the money together that's right so i've actually paid i don't know if he went i remember i offered but um offered to pay for somebody to go to driving school because it wasn't a problem he could solve couldn't figure out how to make money to make money so i thought well i could get you kickstarted and i don't remember how much in the few thousands does somebody have a number for that while we're here can somebody do a little research and put it in the comments what does it cost to go to trucking school i see 3k i see 15 it wasn't 15 and i see 5k my memory was 5k i'm seeing 5k more than anything else how many truckers can spend how many people who are unemployed or looking for a new job could spend 5k to get a job that might be temporary and doesn't sound too good in the first place how hard a problem is that to solve not hard it's one executive order and it's one emergency funding you know in the short term no seriously let me let me back up and ask the question you don't think trump would have solved this by now i mean i'm not sure i quite understand the problem which is also part of the problem but if any part of it is that we don't have enough trained truckers i'm pretty sure that would be solved by now just pay them to go to school and that would probably do it just pay for the classes now there is a secondary question of enough trucks uh california has some kind of environmental rule that um sort of mothballed a bunch of trucks could any of those trucks be put back in production temporarily probably you know maybe they have to steal parts from one truck to build a good truck you know one good truck out of three but i feel like these are all things you could do with an executive order and and a big wallet so you know there's no way to know that trump would have done a better job on this right but here's the things we do know he would have probably fired somebody's ass by now right and the country would feel good about that because we kind of need to see somebody get fired like it's not like i have some kind of bloodlust and i don't even have a bad feeling about you know buddha judge i think he has a lot of talents there's a lot to offer i think but i think he probably used to get fired if he was the one really who should have been doing any of this or recommending it or writing the eo for biden to sign you know nobody's even writing an eo for him to sign uh do you know how uh the trump executive orders got written different ways right but generally people who understood things and needed something and said all right well we'll write you a first draft obviously you know lawyers look at it but we'll just write you the first draft it needs to look like this lawyers look at it president signs it who's doing that for biden who is giving biden executive orders first drafts that says look you know this this could be good if we put this in good order you know get it lawyered up all right i think we're going to see a hashtag that says trump would have fixed this by now that's what i think all right that looks to be what i wanted to talk about today why can't more women be truckers i i don't know if there's any issue with that is there you know i mean you can think of all the usual reasons why they might not want to get into the business uh fake news truckers can be trained in two weeks i think that's true um somebody said that truckers can be trained in two weeks is fake news um coming from me what is what is the right amount of time if anybody who's been trained or gone to trucker school what would be the amount of time to train a trucker i say two weeks in an emergency two weeks in an emergency two weeks yeah i'm saying three to four weeks is normal so how many people would disagree with me six months three months do you actually know what you're talking about or just i i think the most people are saying four weeks and that feels right i think it's a four-week course that in an emergency you could do in two i think they're probably a lot of people who you know maybe have some experience and it doesn't take them the four full four weeks convoy convoy i also wondered uh let me just throw something out there um your housemate trained with ups a couple of weeks ago yeah slightly different problem let me ask you this we've got all these products at the ports i guess they're unloading a lot of the products from the shipping containers and putting them in temporary warehouses until they can get enough trucks is there a play where we could discount those goods and just sell them at the port i don't know i mean it's probably impractical but i just wonder let's just work through this let's say you heard that there were a whole bunch of shipping containers with i don't know televisions a bunch of new 4k tvs and there's a whole shipping container and they just can't get it on a truck and let's say that the company who purchased them for whatever retail purpose says look can you let us sell it we'll sell it right out of the container if you let us sell it out of the container like we'll just stand there with a credit card reader you just take one out take one out of the container i'll just put your credit card in here you just put it on your truck and take it home give you a 30 discount 30 discount if you put it on your truck and take it home it would be a total bottleneck traffic nightmare probably probably all right let me let me let me open it up again is there no way to get those containers to some place where it wouldn't be a bottleneck such as putting a container on one smaller ship yeah you probably can't do that i know i'm just just brainstorming i'm sure people have thought of all these things and rejected them for one reason or another but i think we've got to get creative and i'm not sure anything's happening so here's the pro here's my main problem everything else is just speculation the main problem is that the biden administration has no lead face telling us what's happening every day and we need somebody to tell us what's happening every day now and be right about it use fedex and ups offices well i don't know how that would work the highways of the bottleneck no i don't think they are well maybe just around the ports that could be true uh no trucks in california because no independent contractors in california yeah i've heard that issue there's something about you have to be an employee to drive a truck in california because they don't want independent contractors to be cheating on their taxes or whatever again how easy would that be to fix with an executive order right it's an emergency every one of these problems don't apply in an emergency you know i was saying that during the pandemic when you know trump was doing eos a lot of people would say well you can't do that you can't do this you can't do that and i kept saying the same thing in a crisis you can do anything there are no rules in a crisis except that it's a you know whatever you're doing makes sense the only rule that makes sense in a crisis is is does this look like it'll work that's it everything else doesn't matter you can get rid of that stuff yeah you have to be on war footing exactly uh yeah you yeah you'd have to suspend osha you probably have to suspend a whole bunch of stuff but temporarily it's all it's all doable temporarily it looks like all right why is everybody talking to user eslax apparently there's a troll over here that people are taking seriously on youtube all right that's all i got for now and i will talk to you tomorrow i know you can't wait you're already looking forward to it come on you know you are see you tomorrow

well well well well

look what just happened

can you believe it

yeah what i'm talking about is that you

all showed up here on time for what will

probably be the highlight of your whole

life

today's show

yeah you know the rest of your life

might have had some good highlights like

let's say you know your wedding or the

the birth of your children you know

those are good too yadda yadda but this

this is meaningful

this is the best thing that's ever

happened in any universe in any

metaverse

virtual ar or

other

period it's called coffee with scott

adams and nothing is better than it and

if you want to go

to yet another level

go to another level yeah who wants to

take it to another level

all of

well you

you need is a copper mug or a glass a

tanker challenger steiner canteen jogger

flask a vessel of any kind

fill it with your favorite liquid i like

coffee

join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure

the dopamine hit of the day the thing

that makes

everything better especially

your antibodies yeah it's true one sip

of coffee will

enlighten your

antibodies give them a little energy

if you have uncaffeinated antibodies

well you're just naked

it's like walking around naked

let's give some caffeine to those

antibodies go

can you feel them being a little bit

more active i think you can

i think you can goosebumps wow

you can feel those antibodies now

waking up

it's true they go to sleep at night but

now they're awake

well here's the biggest news

uh looks like it's gonna rain

now that doesn't seem like big news to

you

wherever you live

well i live in california

and it's gonna rain

oh god that's good news

apparently it's gonna rain a lot

like a ton of rain coming our way

like lots and lots of rain

well we can't get enough and that's good

news

so i like it when problems

sort of solve themselves

do we have any yeah oh sure there might

be some mudslides

pessimists

pessimists like how about mudslides yeah

there might be mudslides

but i'd rather have water

well here's the fake news you ready for

the fake news cnn has a good dose of

fake news i'll read the what they wrote

and then you tell me what is the fake

part okay

what is the fake part of this news cnn

says

a booster dose of the pfizer blah blah

coronavirus vaccine was found to have a

high efficacy

can we all

i gotta take a little aside

road here

can we all agree on one thing

i know we're

there's a lot of uh division in the

country

might even be a little division on this

live stream

but if there's one thing we can all

agree on

please

it's that

pronouncing the word

efficacy

is really fun

it makes you feel good when you say it

makes you feel smart try it try it at

home

just say out loud

efficacy

yeah

yeah did you feel it

it's not like other words

it's fun to say

and it makes you feel like you're really

on top of your game

if you can pronounce

efficacy

you know nicely

you look like you're well practically a

scientist now you're not

any virologist probably

but you just learned to say

efficacy just right

well anyway back to my story of fake

news from cnn a booster dose of the

pfizer blah blah coronavirus vaccine was

found to have a high

efficacy

of 95.6 percent

um and that's in the phase three trial

and the company announced that the

efficacy was consistent irrespective of

age sex race ethnicity and

co-morbid conditions

oh i like this new word

comorbid conditions because i've been

saying comor comorbidities

comorbidities is a cool word it's no

it's no efficacy i think we can agree on

that

but i like saying it so i'm going to say

comorbid conditions now

to make me sound smart all right what's

the fake news

what's the fake news

anybody anybody what's the fake news

i'm going to take it as true

let's see i will stipulate

that the 95.6

efficacy is accurate but what's the fake

part where's the fake news come on you

know

you know where it is

nobody really

i thought this would be would be easier

all right um

let me tell you

it's not the day one efficacy that

anybody cares about

am i wrong

who is it who is really obsessing about

day one efficacy

it's not a day one efficacy story

it's a how fast does it wear off story

am i wrong

the story is how long it lasts

and that's not in the story

because obviously they can't know that

because it's new

this is the this is just disgusting fake

news

because they've they led you to believe

that the thing they told you is the

important thing and it's not

it's not i mean it's great that the

efficacy is that high it's actually

impressive and whoever came up with this

uh

let's say kovind shot

i don't like to call it a vaccine for

reasons you understand

but it's still a miracle

i mean if it does this it's kind of a

miracle so it's it's amazing

but

you know assuming it doesn't kill you

but um i feel like they

they didn't tell us the actual story

because that's the part that matters how

long it lasts now they don't know

but i feel like they have to at least

mention it

all right

um how many of you saw me

interview

bjorn lomborg so

i did that not on a live stream i did it

on a recorded interview so i could have

a proper

two screen situation without technical

problems

and that's that's posted now on youtube

so just search for

uh if you just search for bjorn lomborg

and my name it'll pop right up

and

you really should take the time

you should take the time

look at the other comments you'll see

that people enjoyed it a lot

and very similar in

uh let's say in theme to a lot of things

you see from michael schellenberger

sort of the the smarter way to look at

climate and

nuclear energy and stuff like that

but lomborg's been saying this for i

don't know

a long time

he's been on on this for a long time and

he's just a great explainer

so if you want to see somebody who

understands statistics and business and

risk management

you gotta see lobborg right so

i don't like

let me let me say this as clearly as

possible

i don't really enjoy

interviewing other people

because

the fun part is when i'm talking

but i'm also completely aware

that

you're not in it for my fun

you know you don't watch this because

i'm having fun you you're looking for

some benefit for yourself quite

naturally

and it does seem to me that the

especially the author interviews

let me get can i give some

um i need some career advice

let me take a pause here i need some

career advice and this is serious

this is serious questions career advice

i don't love interviewing

authors because of the homework you kind

of have to read the book

right i mean you don't have to

but

it's it's a reasonable courtesy and

expectation

especially if it's a recorded interview

and you're just going to do that with

the author you kind of got to read the

book

so reading books and then interviewing

people is i don't know

10 times harder than what i like to do

every day

which is this

i don't know if you can tell

but i would do this

just for fun

literally

literally this experience

is just purely fun for me

but the author interviews take more

concentration and work however i think

they're more useful

all right here's the part

that i can only say in public because i

have no sense of shame whatsoever

which is a big advantage in life

i'm going to say something that nobody

should say out loud

if they had any sense of dignity or

shame or you know self-preservation all

right i'm just i'm just going to say it

out loud

i think i'm the best in the world

at interviewing people

you're just gonna have to deal with that

for a moment

now

i don't know that to be true right if i

had certainty about it i'd be crazy but

based on my uh experience of just

interviewing a few people i don't think

anybody does it the way i do it

and i think it has more to do with the

way i do it

than you know some natural quality i

possess or something like that so it's

not so much about me being awesome

and that's the part that keeps people

from saying something like that in

public

i actually think i might be the best in

the world with this

and i don't know why exactly could be

that i

i don't have as much partisanship it

could be that the windows that i use to

look at things are

a little bit different or something

somebody says joe rogan is hard to beat

let me make a statement and i'll leave

no ambiguity here whatsoever

i'm way better than joe rogan at

interviewing people it's not even close

joe rogan

is a show

in which you know you've got three hours

of content and he's great at it you know

maybe the best ever

maybe the best ever if you just look at

his success and his audience and the

impact he has i think you could say joe

rogan's show

is the best ever of you know anything in

that genre

but in the narrow question of just doing

an interview

you don't do a three-hour interview

you can do three hours of content

yeah i mean he does that great but an

interview needs to be shorter

right so if you're just going to do one

one interview 45 minutes is a lot for an

interview

a narcissist compensates with false

bravado

oh you're talking about somebody else

not me but you can call me a narcissist

too

that would be fine but just be specific

i'm a grandiose narcissist

not a vulnerable narcissist well as far

as i know i mean

couldn't be wrong about that

but as far as i know i'm i'm the kind of

narcissist that likes to get stuff done

and then if i get credit for that

that's great

i like it

but i but i need to do things that are

legitimately useful for other people

or i don't get anything

so

moving along all right i see your

comment

um

but what was the answer then should i do

more author interviews one question and

then i'll move on should i do more

author interviews

local's platform says absolutely yes yes

yes

away for a moment

youtube's a little mixed

no no yes no

ah

yes yes yes no no no

okay in a question like this only the

yeses matter

here's a little uh tip for you about how

to judge

public opinion on entertainment stuff

this is a really good tip

learn this and you'll you'll have

something to take with you

so i'm looking at the youtube messages

and it's a mixture of yeses and no's

so what should that tell me about

whether i should do this

it's an absolute yes

based on the feedback because it doesn't

matter how many people say no

this is the key learning

it doesn't matter how many people

wouldn't watch it it has nothing to do

with whether you should do it the only

thing that matters is how many would

because there's a lot of people

if if five billion people hate you

but a billion people love you

you're in a pretty good position if

you've got a billion people on your side

even the 5 billion hate you so it has

nothing to do with how many people don't

want to watch you

irrelevant

all right

um

yeah so also i was on uh viven barnes

yesterday you should google that that

was a lot of fun if you missed me on

viva and barnes

you're going to want to at least stay

for how i addressed the first

troll who had a comment because i might

have lost my

i might have lost my composure

so if you like if you like to watch

things where

people lose their composure

you want to watch that one

you might like it

well the big news today is that trump is

launching a social media network called

truth social media

they're saying that so far it's uh

they're opening it up for beta

beta users

so

so trump's network will be open for beta

users

um

there is some suggestion that later

conservatives will also be able to use

it

but for now apparently you have to be a

beta

to use it um so i said it was just all

mostly democrats

i don't know

am i reading too much into this

oh oh oh a beta i'm sorry i

misinterpreted this it's it's the

technology is the beta

it's the technology that okay

i thought it was just for betas

um

one of my weirdest predictions

might be

about ready to come true i'm not sure

yet so i don't have confidence in it but

here's one of my weirdest predictions

trump would lose money as president

and make it back after he was out of

office and and ten times more

so when everybody said uh i think

running for president is really bad for

your company and it was it was terrible

for the trump uh

company i assume you know it's a private

company but one assumes looking from the

outside it was just terrible for

business

but now he's launched this new media

platform i assume he has equity right

has anybody seen any reporting

on the degree of equity that trump has

versus his partners

i don't think i've seen that

but one assumes he has you know a good

chunk of equity

and

what is the best way to become a

multi-billionaire in the united states

it's this

somehow trump managed to have equity in

the type of company now we don't know if

this one will work per se

but in the type of company that makes

you a multi-billionaire right away

he could be one year away from being one

of the richest people in the country

again

and i i always assumed that he would

find a way to monetize

you know his

reputation and everything else and maybe

this is it you know you you can't really

bet on any newish platform succeeding i

think the odds are always against it but

he's bringing something that nobody ever

brought before which is himself

and if people just sign up just so they

can see what he's saying

imagine if he runs for president which

seems likely

and the only place you can see the good

stuff is on his his platform

you have to sign up right

if the only place you can see his like

extra good stuff is on his own platform

every reporter has to sign up basically

every pundit

everybody who watches you all have to

sign up

so he does have

kind of a perfect setup

which doesn't mean it's going to succeed

but the setup is kind of perfect

i've already put in my name so

there's a site where you can go to to

sign up to be invited or not so i put in

my name

i was looking at the uh

michael schellenberger tweet talking

about greta tunberg who was quoted in

the past as saying quote i want you to

panic

so

greta and of course other people

literally wanted people to panic about

the climate change stuff

and

unfortunately i think they succeeded

it looks like they succeeded in getting

people to panic

so sort of a be careful what you wish

for a situation

because

um

i've said the best i've said the best

situation if climate change is really as

dangerous as people say or any version

of it is

um

you need a little bit of panic don't you

like there's some productive amount of

fear

that gets you to do the right things so

you're not in trouble in the future

but maybe we overshot the mark we may

have over panicked it's hard to know

what is the exact right amount of panic

well i think it's time to fire pete

butterjudge

um and i'm i'm reasonably pro-booted

judge and i'm also reasonably not

reasonably i'm pro-paternal

leave right wouldn't want to threaten

you know the

the idea that people can have you know

parental leave

um but at the same time it is maybe the

biggest problem in the country

and i don't think anybody's in charge

are they

is anybody in charge

i saw on twitter somebody saying that

the

the secretary of transportation is not

really the person who's the right person

to fix

the the trucking slash

problem

is that true

can somebody tell me that just the first

question is is buddha judge does even

have the portfolio and the power to be

in charge of this problem

because that's a good question

right and if it's not him

who is it

and if we don't know who it is and it's

the biggest problem it's not the

president the president doesn't seem

involved in any way

who's working on the biggest problem

i feel like

bootage has taken some responsibility

for it hasn't he

somebody says power yes but portfolio no

i think that's the right answer

i think the answer is that buddha judge

could take control of it

you know he could sort of

uh i'm sure he could get by them to

assign him the job of you know

transportation

czar of trucking and

logistics or something

so

i i think you're right that maybe is his

job description is not exactly on point

but in a crisis it seems like he would

be the one that you'd pick

now let me ask you this

if trump were president how would this

supply chain problem look different

i feel like trump would have solved this

by now

i also feel

a hashtag coming on

it's a little too long but something

along the lines of trump would have

solved this by now

because it you know look at the

the border problem

trump would have solved that by now

there are a few things that we see that

just look like obviously trump would be

the better choice

if only because he would be engaged and

biden doesn't seem to be

look at what trump might have done right

we're just speculating here because we

don't know

but

here's something he might have done

trump might have fired somebody

right

he might have fired somebody i don't

know if that's buddha judge or somebody

else but i think you have to fire

somebody

like

i feel like it now maybe there's nobody

who's quite on point to be the right one

to fire but if there's nobody to fire

then at least you need to pick a czar to

be in charge

so you have somebody to fire later right

i think trump would have written some

executive orders to override some any

state

regulations that were slowing things

down

and now i've heard things such as there

are not enough trucks

because of environmental concerns of old

trucks in california

do you think trump couldn't solve that

problem

one eo

just says well

temporarily you can use any truck you

want

just temporarily because it's a crisis

you don't think trump would have done

that

just signed something that says

temporarily we're not going to worry

about california's

regulations now it could be that the

trucks just don't exist

you know maybe the older trucks have

been decommissioned and whatever else so

maybe there's just no play there i don't

know

but why don't we know that

because nobody's in charge

there's nobody in the government

who says i'm in charge

let me give you an update here's what

we're doing here's what's wrong we've

identified the problem here's the

solution we're working on it might take

us a little time but we've identified

the problem somebody's in charge and

here's the solution we we think will

work

where is all that

right

where's all of that

at the very least i think a trump

administration would be keeping you up

to date

on what the hell is happening

or even tell you what the problem was

so i've been asking

everybody for days now

describe what exactly is the problem

and

luckily people who are well informed the

number of people who work in the field

and are involved with logistics some of

them you know have interviewed employees

at the docs and with all this

information finally

finally i got really clear

detailed

answer to why things are slowing down

unfortunately

all of the really clear

detailed answers of why

the supply chain isn't working

were different

that's right

lots of experts waiting people really

know that they're actually working on it

right now the people in the field doing

logistics doing the shipping you know

unloading them the people who are close

to it they really know and so they told

me what the problem was

lots of them

all different

what's that mean

what's it mean when everybody knows the

problem but they'll have a different

answer

what's that mean

well the the smallest amount it means is

that there's something going on

you know what it feels like

i don't think it is so don't take this

as a conspiracy let me tell you what it

feels like tell me actually see if

anybody else says the same thing what

what does it feel like is the problem

not really

you know there's no evidence of this but

what's it feel like

boom

uh

tim amaka on locals

got the right answer

war

it feels like

when the twin towers got hit with

airplanes

and he didn't quite know who was doing

it or who was behind it

it feels like war

specifically let's see if you can take

it to the next level so war is the right

answer

take it to the next level

give me another detail on that

somebody says china

give me another detail

all right i'm not i'm not alleging this

all right there there's no allegation

i'm just saying how it feels

there there's one thing i'm looking for

here

i haven't seen it yet

there we go somebody got it

i knew i knew you'd get it uh david

i think david said it first on locals

uh it looks like a cyber attack

i'll i'll even take it to another level

uh i'm accepting cyber as you know close

enough

looks like an ai attack

yeah what did that just do to your brain

right

first time you heard that

i don't think anybody else has mentioned

it this feels like

an a.i

attack

so it feels like now i would not allege

that because i think you'd you'd have to

have some kind of direct evidence to say

that

but

if we ever get an ai attack

what's it going to look like

it's going to look like a whole bunch of

things seem to stop working right at

about the same time

it's going to look like we can't quite

identify

the source of the problem but our

systems aren't working

the things that used to be smooth just

stop being smooth and we don't know why

now again let me be very clear i'm not

alleging

that this is some kind of a ai attack

i'm only alleging

that it would feel and look exactly like

this

i don't think you'd know you'd be

attacked when you think of an ai attack

you think they're going to turn the

lights off

or you think they're going to you know

break uh

the hydroelectric dam or something you

know you think of it like a terrorist

attack

but i think ai would attack without

telling you they're attacking

what's the point of having artificial

intelligence if if it's dumb

right you don't want dumb ai that's no

good a smart ai i wouldn't tell you it's

attacking would it it'd be a sneak

attack

so an ai attack that you know was worth

anything would be a sneak attack because

you don't want um

you don't want some kind of a response

what did i do to your brains today

because the for the first time you

realize that and again i'm not saying

this is an ai attack the first time you

realize that this is what it would look

like

and how it would feel

is

disconcerting isn't it

pretty disconcerting

now

let me add a little meat to that the way

an ai attack would work

would be just to hit enough systems that

are related to the same process in this

case the supply chain to have enough

misinformation

and enough persuasion just inserted at

the right points there's several things

seem to be breaking at the same time and

you wouldn't know why

just a little everything's just a little

bit broken

you know nothing exploded

just everything's a little bit broken

and then the supply chain just goes

crazy

all right um

newsweek had a story today in which

they referred to the fine people

hoax

but linked to an article that seemed to

treat it like it was true

now i was informed that newsweek did in

fact put the clarifying statement in

there that trump said he wasn't talking

about the neo-nazis

but in

in its entirety

and with the link

they're still spreading the fine people

hoax in 2021 the most debunked hoax of

all time

still being at least couched in a way

that

they're making it look like maybe it was

true

based on the linked linked article

and

so i said to myself how could you not

know that in 2021 so i googled it

google

uh you just use google

and google find

people hoax

and put a plus in front of hoax so you

make sure that an article should comes

up that says hoax

do you know what will come up

articles that say it's true

and don't have the word hoax in

now i only did this quickly so i didn't

confirm this but i think that's true i

think the top searches

for the thing that requires the word

hoax to be in it don't have the word

hoax in it you have to go down pretty

far to get something from politico or

from me

right

try it yourself and just can somebody

confirm that so this is an unconfirmed

claim i'm claiming because i didn't open

all the articles but i doubt those

articles had the word hoax in it

i kind of doubt it

they it feels like they're artificially

pinned to the top

not sure

but it looked like it

all right

so um

do you know robert everybody know robert

reich

economist and uh democrat

and he's a super partisan you know

tweeter and

pretty active on social media

and here's my problem with him

i think it's because he's an economist

that i have more problem with his bias

than i do with other people's

you know if you see a politician or

somebody's working for a politician or

clearly an activist and they say things

that are just amazingly biased and

one-sided and

basically just looks like a lie

you say to yourself well they're a

politician or they're working for a

politician and you you sort of discount

it as being just ridiculous

but when

when a famous

you know at least notable

economist says something you you try to

think well

you know at least maybe he's right about

that

but he is so

insanely biased

that it just disgusts me when i see his

tweets

because i hate to see somebody who's an

economist

uh like

throw his entire profession under a bus

if you're an economist and you can't

treat things objectively

you need to give your degree back

right you should just give it back

because you didn't earn an economics

degree

if you can't even attempt to be a little

unbiased

all right so he tweeted he said there's

something talking about the uh

the bill to uh strengthen the voting

rights that got rejected

so congress rejected it but there were

enough people to have gotten a majority

but not enough to beat a filibuster i

think most of you are well educated on

the

process but if anybody isn't

most bills you could get passed with a

simple majority

you know 51 percent or whatever

but for some things you need more than

that you know a super majority if you're

trying to be a filibuster the filibuster

is just one party usually i think always

the minority party

uh just trying to use the procedural

right to talk forever to delay things

until you know you can't get anything

passed

and righteous things he says he tweets

there's something terribly wrong with

the system that allows 41 senate

republicans representing only 21 of the

country

to block voting rights legislation

supported by nearly 70 percent of

americans

the filibuster must go

god

he's so slimy

i so slimy

all right here's the problem with this

how many of americans actually

understand what's in the voting rights

bill

what do you think

he says 70 are in favor of this bill how

many you think know what's in the bill

zero

zero

because democrats always make

complicated bills that you can't

understand

the infrastructure bill 3.5 trillion how

many americans knew what was in that

zero

how many people know what's in the uh

the voting rights bill

none

none

nobody

so robert reich

you slimy piece of

you know

suggesting that somehow 70 of americans

wanting

this or wanting voting rights in general

is somehow in favor of this specific

bill

this is not the case and you know it

so when i see somebody lie

i mean this is just

well lies may be the wrong word here

let's say

persuade in such a biased way

it just discredits

economists and i hate that

you know the economists

certainly not right all the time

but they don't need this

all right

so

it appears that democrats have a

two-pronged strategy

uh

and uh that's that's pretty interesting

the first prong is to get rid of the

filibuster now you're hearing a lot of

talk about that right so democrats

are the party in power but they can't

get things done because of this darn

filibuster the republicans keep using

so step one is a lot of democrats want

to get rid of the filibuster

step one is their clever plan

step two of their plan

is to botch one thing after another

until the party empowers the republicans

so step one

give whoever the party in power is all

the power and by getting rid of the

filibuster step two make sure that the

other party is in power and has all that

power with no filibuster

isn't that what's happening

am i wrong

i'm not wrong right

that they explicitly have those two

goals well the first one is explicit get

rid of the filibuster

but

it does look like every single force is

suggesting that the republicans will

retake power

right

i mean at least congress in 2022

so

shouldn't getting rid of the filibuster

be really close to the last thing they

would want right now

i know how can you support a party that

has this as

their plan

to give all the power to the other side

i'm not making this up

you're seeing the same thing i see right

you

there there's no there's no debate on

these two facts democrats want to get

rid of the filibuster many of them the

ones the ones we see talking public at

the same time

it's pretty clear that the performance

we're getting of the democrats will put

republicans in power

they know that too don't they

don't they know that

maybe they don't

all right

so here's cnn helping the public

understand what's in the bill

finally

you know it's a complicated bill with a

lot of stuff in it and i'd like to

understand it better and so for the

benefit of my viewers here i'm going to

read cnn's description

so that all of you will finally know

what's in this complicated bill are you

ready this should answer all of your

questions

um as written the current compromise

version this is one mansion put together

of the bill would establish national

rules for running elections

sounds good

limit partisanship in the drawing of

congressional districts

looks good looks good

and

forced the disclosure of many anonymous

donors who spend big to influence

elections

i like that

pretty good pretty good

other provisions were aimed at

alleviating concerns from local

election officials

who worried that the original bill would

have been too difficult to implement

okay so they simplified it good

and some new editions were aimed at

insulating non-partisan

i don't know what that means

blah blah blah it also included a number

of changes sought by mansion blah blah

blah including a provision that would

limit but not prohibit state voter id

requirements

do you think you know enough about the

bill now to have an opinion

no

no

not even close

basically cnn's just sort of like

brushing the top of it

they might as they might as well have

named uh the parts of the bill

awesome things that everybody loves

how would you like a bill

we're going to fill it

with awesome things that everyone loves

oh don't ask the details

no don't ask about the details don't ask

how it will be implemented what the what

the cost of it is what the side effects

will be and how it will distort anything

don't ask that

it's just called the awesome bill that

everybody loves with things in it that

you want

that's all you need to know

don't give us all this details about

what's good or bad about it or all that

it's just the awesome bill that

everybody loves

and then democrats can get everything

they want

so

there is a reason that our system is a

republic do you remember what it was

anybody anybody

why is our system a republic and not a

pure democracy

this this

this is why

because the public can't understand this

stuff

so if our elected officials um go in

there you know they have a better chance

of understanding it that doesn't work so

well either

but uh yeah there's a reason we're a

republic

did you see the video of jeremy raskin

democrat interrogating republican matt

gates

about the january sex stuff

it's it's a pretty good clip so if you

get a chance i think i tweeted it today

so rascal is really going hard at matt

gates challenging him to

does he believe that

trump won the election

or not

now to his credit matt gates is i don't

know if you know this but he he was a i

think he was like a state champion

uh on his high school debate team

i may have the detail of that wrong but

something like that like matt gates is

super good

at debating things and holding his own

and exactly this kind of situation

however

um

i think i think he blew his

his chance on this

he did better than most

probably a top five percent answer

better than most

yeah and and certainly showed showed

that he has the uh you know the the

chops to be in that situation

but

i feel like here's how i would have

answered it okay so raskin i'm gonna

paraphrase you know the the thing

but essentially raskin was saying you

know all these courts rejected the

evidence so how can you say that maybe

the election wasn't fair when so many

courts rejected all the evidence

now what matt gates tried to do

was suggest that courts are not the

right tool

for evaluating the claims because most

of them were rejected on

grounds of you know whether it was an

appropriate

what's the right name appropriate

whether the courts were the right

vehicle for the complaint

what's the word

standing yes standing

so the complaints did not meet the legal

legal standard

for standing meaning that it wasn't the

right people taking the right to

complain to the right court

is that is that close enough it wasn't

the right people taking the right kind

of complaint to the right court

so we never had a situation where the

right people took the right complaint to

the right court

although sometimes i think they did

but in general a lot of things were

rejected by standing

so matt gates tries to give that answer

how was that answer

true

so matt gates answers was accurate

and right on point

also a complete failure persuasion-wise

so being accurate

and being right on point and being

confident and all the things he did

right because he did a lot right not

even close to being good enough

here's what good enough would look like

you ready

put me in matt gates's chair jamie

raskin says you know scott adams that

no court and he lists the number of

courts and the number of claims and if

they've all been turned down he said

what do you what do you think about that

scott no court no court

here's the right answer

i'd like to understand your question

better uh mr eskin

there seems to be an embedded assumption

in your question i just need a

clarification

can i get a clarification on the

question are you suggesting

that the courts would be the right place

to evaluate the claims

and raskin would say something like um

um you know all these courts rejected it

they all rejected it he'd probably just

repeat himself he'd say yeah i know i

heard that part and and i agree with

everything you're saying but i'm looking

for your assumption

is your assumption that the courts were

the right vehicle

to evaluate claims because the court

said they weren't

you know all the ones you're mentioning

are you aware of that mr reskin

i just need a clarification you're aware

that the court said they're not the

right vehicle for this right

so i'm a little confused why you're

asking the question

were you not aware of that

right

[Laughter]

you could basically end raskin right

there

but you have to do it by asking him for

clarification

because you need to put him on his heels

here's what matt gates got wrong

he entered raskin's frame

he entered his frame

raskin painted a box

and then invited you know linguistically

he painted a box

and then invited matt gates to get into

his box which was a kill box

and matt gates walked right into the

kill box

well armed well armed because maggie's

is really really good at this stuff but

he walked into the kill box

don't walk into the kill box never

never don't enter his frame you gotta

break his frame

he he offered a frame

you say i need a clarification on that

because there's an assumption that

embedded in your question that

that i need to understand because

my assumption

wouldn't make your question make sense

but maybe you can explain it to the

public

why the courts didn't think they were

the right vehicle for this

but but you still do

is there something that you know

that all those judges don't know

jamie rescue i mean or jeremy

there were what 60 some judges

who all think that they were not

appropriate

vehicles for this question but you still

think they were

i better explain that

see where i'm going okay how many of you

think my answer would be better

you know you can be brutal

you can be brutal if you think it

doesn't

it's not even close right

now

let me ask you another question

except for the part

where i would never run for president

because you know i don't want them

looking into my life and tearing me

apart there would be a suicide mission

i could be president

because

there is a skill set

for this sort of stuff

that i possess

matt gates has that skill set

like really really good

but you know he got taken down by

by the media so far i don't know if

he'll

recover but

he doesn't have he doesn't have my level

you know i i would put matt gates as a

eight and a 10 on communication which is

higher than almost everybody

but i am a 10. i am a 10. there are 10s

i think trump's a 10.

trump's a 10.

absolutely

and i and let me be clear it's not

because of some genetic quality i

possess

i'm not saying i'm good at this because

i'm somehow born

born with talent

no it's it's a skill

it's literally just a skill you can

study

i've studied it

anybody who'd studied it as much as me

could do what i do

let me give you an example

uh the same problem you know uh let's

let's take mike cernovich by the way if

you don't know i use him for all my

examples

for some reason he fits every example

like story

i don't know why but there's something

something about the nature of him that

he fits lots of stories

if mike cernovich wanted to be president

again you'd have to subtract out

whatever you know things the press would

talk about in his past so neither he nor

i are really legitimate

possibilities for the president but does

he have the skill set

to do what i just told you matt gates

should have done

yeah it does

how much would you like to have seen

mike

cerdovich

answer jeremy raskin's question in

public

it would have been different

it would have been different yeah you

can you can uh

talk about all the reasons that he or i

are unqualified for other reasons but

communication wise

uh he's a ten

all right

supply chain

yeah trump would have fixed this by now

i i feel like there could have been a uh

a warp speed

version for trucking

i do think that the

the number one reason i get for the

supply chain problems

is that

there aren't enough trucks and truckers

you don't think trump would have already

spun up a warp speed for trucking

and how hard could it be

how hard could it be to do warp speed

and say uh well we got a problem here

but in three weeks you can have a

ton of trucks and truckers

there are definitely enough unemployed

people who want jobs you could

definitely temporarily give them you

know

emergency pay to make it worthwhile you

could definitely get people who would be

willing to be trained because

you know maybe the training is free

because right now i think you have to oh

correct me if i'm wrong

i need a fact check on this everybody i

need a fact check on this

trucker school

costs money

that people don't have in other words

there are a lot of people who want to be

truckers but they can't afford it

because the trucking school costs money

how do i know that

how does scott know that trucking school

costs money and the people who might

want to be truckers don't have that

money

the reason i know that is i once paid

for somebody to go to trucking school

do you know why i did

because there was no way in the world

that he ever could have gotten the money

together

that's right

so

i've actually paid

i don't know if he went i remember i

offered but um offered to pay for

somebody to go to driving school because

it wasn't a problem he could solve

couldn't figure out how to make money to

make money so i thought well i could get

you kickstarted

and i don't remember how much

in the few thousands does somebody have

a number for that

while we're here can somebody do a

little research and put it in the

comments

what does it cost to go to trucking

school

i see 3k i see 15 it wasn't 15 and i see

5k my memory was 5k

i'm seeing 5k more than anything else

how many truckers can spend how many

people who are unemployed or looking for

a new job could spend 5k

to get a job that might be temporary

and

doesn't sound too good in the first

place

how hard a problem is that to solve

not hard

it's one executive order

and it's one emergency funding

you know in the short term

no seriously let me let me back up and

ask the question

you don't think trump would have solved

this by now

i mean i'm not sure i quite understand

the problem which is also part of the

problem but if any part of it is that we

don't have enough

trained truckers

i'm pretty sure that would be solved by

now

just

pay them to go to school

and that would probably do it

just pay for the classes

now there is a secondary question of

enough trucks

uh california has some kind of

environmental rule that

um sort of mothballed a bunch of trucks

could any of those trucks be put back in

production temporarily

probably

you know maybe they have to steal parts

from one truck to build a good truck you

know one good truck out of three

but i feel like

these are all things you could do with

an executive order

and and a big wallet

so

you know there's no way to know that

trump would have done a better job on

this right but here's the things we do

know he would have probably fired

somebody's ass by now

right and the country would feel good

about that

because we kind of need to see somebody

get fired

like it's not like i have some kind of

bloodlust and i don't even have a bad

feeling about you know buddha judge i

think he has a lot of talents there's a

lot to offer i think

but i think he probably used to get

fired

if he was the one really who should have

been doing any of this or recommending

it or writing the eo for biden to sign

you know nobody's even writing an eo for

him to sign

uh do you know how uh

the trump

executive orders got written

different ways right but generally

people who understood things and needed

something and said all right well

we'll write you a first draft

obviously you know lawyers look at it

but we'll just write you the first draft

it needs to look like this

lawyers look at it president signs it

who's doing that for biden

who is giving biden executive orders

first drafts that says look you know

this this could be good if we put this

in good order you know get it lawyered

up

all right

i think we're going to see a hashtag

that says trump would have fixed this by

now

that's what i think

all right

that

looks to be what i wanted to talk about

today

why can't more women be truckers

i i don't know if there's any issue

with that is there

you know

i mean you can think of all the usual

reasons why they might not want to get

into the business

uh fake news truckers can be trained in

two weeks

i think that's true

um somebody said that truckers can be

trained in two weeks is fake news um

coming from me

what is what is the right amount of time

if anybody who's been trained or gone to

trucker school

what would be the amount of time to

train a trucker

i say two weeks

in an emergency two weeks

in an emergency two weeks

yeah

i'm saying three to four weeks is normal

so how many people would disagree with

me

six months three months

do you actually know what you're talking

about or just

i i think the most people are saying

four weeks and that feels right

i think it's a four-week course that in

an emergency you could do in two i think

they're probably a lot of people who you

know maybe have some experience and it

doesn't take them the four full four

weeks

convoy

convoy

i also wondered uh

let me just throw something out there

um

your housemate trained with ups a couple

of weeks ago yeah slightly different

problem

let me ask you this we've got all these

products at the ports i guess they're

unloading a lot of the products from the

shipping containers and putting them in

temporary warehouses until they can get

enough trucks

is there a play

where we could discount those goods

and just sell them at the port

i don't know i mean it's probably

impractical but i just wonder

let's just work through this

let's say you heard

that there were a whole bunch of

shipping containers with

i don't know televisions

a bunch of new 4k tvs

and there's a whole shipping container

and they just can't get it on a truck

and let's say that the company who

purchased them for whatever retail

purpose

says look can you let us sell it

we'll sell it right out of the container

if you let us sell it out of the

container

like we'll just stand there with a

credit card reader

you just take one out take one out of

the container i'll just put your credit

card in here you just put it on your

truck and take it home

give you a 30 discount

30 discount if you put it on your truck

and take it home

it would be a total bottleneck traffic

nightmare

probably

probably all right let me let me let me

open it up again

is there no way to get those containers

to some place where it wouldn't be a

bottleneck

such as putting a container on one

smaller ship yeah you probably can't do

that

i know i'm just just brainstorming

i'm sure people have thought of all

these things and rejected them for one

reason or another but i think we've got

to get creative

and i'm not sure anything's happening so

here's the pro here's my main problem

everything else is just speculation the

main problem

is that the biden administration

has no lead face

telling us what's happening every day

and we need somebody to tell us what's

happening every day now

and be right about it

use fedex and ups offices well

i don't know how that would work

the highways of the bottleneck no i

don't think they are well maybe just

around the ports that could be true

uh no trucks in california because no

independent contractors in california

yeah i've heard that issue there's

something about

you have to be an employee

to drive a truck in california because

they don't want independent contractors

to be cheating on their taxes or

whatever

again

how easy would that be to fix with an

executive order

right it's an emergency every one of

these problems don't apply in an

emergency you know i was saying that

during the pandemic when you know trump

was doing eos a lot of people would say

well you can't do that you can't do this

you can't do that and i kept saying the

same thing

in a crisis you can do anything

there are no rules in a crisis

except that it's a you know whatever

you're doing makes sense

the only rule that makes sense in a

crisis is is does this look like it'll

work

that's it

everything else doesn't matter you can

get rid of that stuff

yeah you have to be on war footing

exactly

uh yeah you

yeah you'd have to suspend osha you

probably have to suspend a whole bunch

of stuff but temporarily

it's all it's all doable temporarily it

looks like

all right

why is everybody talking to user eslax

apparently there's a troll over here

that people are taking seriously on

youtube

all right that's all i got for now and i

will talk to you

tomorrow i know you can't wait you're

already looking forward to it come on

you know you are see you tomorrow