Episode 1551 Scott Adams - The Complete Self-Annihilation of the Democrat Party, Lots More

good morning everybody and welcome to an experience that i think will be unparalleled at least until tomorrow and it's called the simultaneous sip and coffee with scott adams and i don't think there's anything better in this reality or any metaverse whatsoever but if you'd like to take it up a notch i think you do all you need is a cup copper mugger glasses tanker chelsea steiner canteen juggerflask vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of the day the thing makes everything better except for the brandon administration more go oh yeah yeah the antibodies just coursing through my body whoa whoa got a little extra antibodies in my shoulder gonna work it out work it out spread it out there we go you don't want all your antibodies in one part you need to need to get moving shake them around a little bit well you also that ron desantis is once again following in president trump's shadow and footsteps came up with his own sticky nickname yes he calls it the brandon administration as i borrowed his joke just a moment ago the brampton administration always gets a big laugh from the partisans let's talk about the things that are happening uh things are happening let's see uh vaccination mandates going into effect uh january 4th for big employers over 100 people what is there to say about that you know i could say i don't like them you could say you don't like them but here's the only thing i'm going to add to this if you think it's the government that is mandating this you're completely wrong that's probably what most you think you think the government is mandating it um and i would argue that that's only technically true it is true that the government is mandating it and they have rules and whatnot but i remind you as uh rasmussen reminded me today they've got a new poll rasmussen poll 52 percent of uh 52 percent of the public um surveyed support workers refusing vaccinations but that means there's a whole bunch of people who don't so just slightly more than half of the country is in favor of you know not doing these mandates here's the thing you need to know if that were 75 it wouldn't be happening how many disagree with me so here's the point right now 52 percent of workers support not making people have to get vaccinations so they're opposed to the mandate but only 52 percent hypothetically if it were 75 would it be happening anybody does anybody think it would happen if it were 75 we're against it i don't think so i don't think so now you could disagree where where that number is 75 or 90 or whatever but my point is the only reason the government can do this is because the public by enough people are on board just barely if it feels like it's sort of a slim majority but you're not you're not dealing with the government you're dealing with your fellow citizens if you could convince you know half of the remaining people who were four mandates to take your side you'd have 75 people against mandates and they just wouldn't happen does anybody doubt that that's my take on it so i i think that we often um mistake where power is power is with the people completely uh in this country that will just always be the case at least for anything long term if we have you know if we need quick decisions you know such as a war situation then we actually prefer the government to do it because it has to be quick but for these longer term considered you know topics we really have the power completely but we have to be on the same side or we have nothing so that's the difference i suppose if the government can keep us confused and ignorant they do have the power um there are effectively three political parties now would you agree two of them are called democrats you got your progressives and then your standard standard democrats i guess but then republicans are more of a unified so it's like three three different parties and let me make a suggestion this has opened up the door very much though for a new party maybe for the first time i don't think that a third party really had a choice or a chance uh and maybe they still don't but it's the biggest opening i've seen here's how i would do it this is me running for president as an independent starting my own third party or fourth party depending on how you count them i would call it the middle party i would call it the middle party and i would say i oppose the extreme right and the extreme left and most people do unless you're wed to the name on your registration consider the middle party because i'm going to give you stuff that makes sense i might raise your taxes a little but not a lot and i would do it with the support of economists and and lots of uh and lots of support that it makes sense economically uh i might do something that would benefit the black population of this country but it will make sense it won't be stupid right so don't you think that a the right candidate you'd have to be the right person but don't you think that the middle party and the name of it is very important if you say you're some other party then people say oh why do i want to be that but if you say you're the middle party guess what you can stay republican you can stay democrat you're just voting for the middle a lot of people like the middle but they prefer to be a republican they rep prefer to be a democrat but they might vote for the middle so give them a give them something to vote for and then every time somebody says you know what side are you on you just stake out the middle the sensible middle and say look this is where the people are the people are in the sensible middle take any topic take any topic uh the school system you could say uh yeah we're going to keep our public schools but we're going to keep the option open for competition totally in the middle totally supported and you know you could just go right down the line on different topics how about abortion if you're running for president you have to talk about it but here's how i'd handle it if i were the head of the middle party i'd say it's not a federal government decision and i'm not going to make it one because i think the authority for that should be pushed down to the lowest level you can get it state level ideally and i just say i'm out i'm the middle whatever whatever the country wants state by state it's fine with me i think that could win you'd have to have exactly the right candidate though everybody's talking about why did yunkin win have you noticed that whenever anything happens there are lots of explanations when trump unexpectedly won in 2016 what was the news all about the next day it was all about why he won and all the reasons were different it was all over the place i think cnn had 14 different reasons he won but here's the thing with a big complicated thing like an election it's never one thing it's all of the things every one of the things had to be the way they were for him to get the result he did if any of those things had been different you were lost so is it sensible to say there's one there's one thing not really because it's sort of the haystack thing it might be the last straw but it's just one of the straws right is the last straw the special one no it just came last so there might be something that you know breaks breaks the log jam there but it's not special there's nothing about that one straw so here are the things people are saying about younkins number one it's just a historical pattern i said this yesterday it turns out that this is exactly the result you could have predicted based on historical pattern that if you have a president one party virginia will go to the other party and eight times in a row it's happened so that's one way the other of course is that the focus was on critical race theory but i have a uh and and you know of course young can want to ran a good campaign etc and i think he did a good job of keeping some distance from trump and it helped that he didn't have any history as a politician so those are all good again you can't say there's one reason you want it's all of those things had to happen but i would like to add another variable just speculation i have a hypothesis and maybe somebody's i haven't googled this maybe it's already been tested but i feel as if i've seen a study where you can show you can show people who don't know who the candidates are could be some other country where you're not familiar with the candidates and that people can guess who would win the election by looking at their photographs did you know that that the public i and i i need a fact check on this but i read this a long time ago i think that that people can tell who's going to win an election by looking at the photographs even without even knowing the names of the candidates or what they're running for can somebody confirm that's true i think that's true now i would add a second factor i would i would bet that i now i don't know if this is generalizable but probably it is i'm just going to say it about myself i believe that if you gave me audio clips of each candidate in a closest race so it'd have to be a race where you think that both have at least a chance of winning you know not not blowouts but in a close race if you give me just the audio of each of their speeches for uh 10 to 15 seconds it wouldn't matter what part of the what topic it was 10 to 15 seconds of just hearing them talk i can pick the winner that's my claim now not every time of course but i'll bet i could get a 75 of the time plus what do you think do you think i could get that right 75 percent of the time i don't know but if you heard obama talking and compared him to whoever he ran against i think you could have picked him and and when i heard an audio of jungkin talking compared to terry mcauliffe talking i said to myself if this is close young kid's going to win because there's something in his voice or his presentation or his confidence or i don't know what it is i don't know i don't exactly know what it is but there's definitely such a thing as command voice wouldn't you say nobody's going to argue with that right there is such a thing as command voice and women have it too right it's not a gender thing women can have a command voice if you've ever worked for a really good female boss oh they haven't they have command voice it's just the female version of it but it's command voice and i thought young kid had command voice and i thought mcauliffe was weak there so when i heard it i was like whoa that doesn't even sound close to me it looks like it looks like one good candidate and one not so good just on that 15 seconds of voice and i said to myself i think this guy's gonna win and i wasn't even following the race command presence that's i guess that's the better better phrase for it right all right we have some more fun stuff going on ap did a fact check today see if you agree with this fact check what do you think ap says posts continue to circulate online falsely claiming that coven 19 survivors don't need vaccines because of natural immunity in fact says the ap fact checkers that protection is variable and not long lasting so vaccines are still recommended here's our recent blah blah um so here's my take on that here's the exact claim that uh that if you're if you've already been infected and recovered that your protection is variable and not long lasting is that true so before before we get to all of it the bigger picture is the limited claim correct that natural immunity is variable well first of all just a little just ask you is it variable do you think there are people with good natural immunity and some with not so good it's true right so i would say that's true people have is variable and it's also not long lasting well what's that mean what does not long lasting mean well it means anything they wanted to so i'm not going to say it's false because wouldn't you like your immunity to last forever you would right so the standard that would make you happy is it lasts forever because there are other immunities that seem to last forever and they're saying that this doesn't do that so it's not long enough to make us happy is that fair is it fair to say that unlike unlike other uh types of natural immunity it wouldn't be as as good right but now let's talk about the vaccination itself yeah you're getting ahead of me the vaccination itself is that variable yes it is same as natural immunity has everybody on the same page so far that there's great individual variability both in natural immunity and in vaccine immunity we're all on the same page in that right very variability so no difference there in the sense that they're both variable you know it might be a different variability but plenty enough to say that they're similar how about whether vaccinations themselves are long lasting well no that's why we get boosters so you've got vaccinations that are not that are very variable they're variable let's say vaccinations are variable and not long-lasting natural immunity is also variable and not long-lasting so do you say to yourself therefore therefore i should not get a vaccination because these are two things that are the same they're both variable and they're both not long lasting is that is that good thinking now we're going to talk about vaccine side effects but for the moment is that good thinking it's not good thinking right so um i'm going to just help you on the the thinking part of it here right your opinion is your own and none of us are going to have enough really information for in my opinion to have an informed opinion there's a little bit of guessing all right here's what's here's what the difference is if you get the vaccination do you have the option of giving yourself natural immunity on top of it well accidentally or i suppose you could but generally that's not going to happen right you're not going to intentionally get infected most people aren't some might whereas if you get natural immunity you could make the decision to get vaccinated or not so they don't work equally in both directions are we okay so far they're not equivalent because in one case you can get both in a logical rational way in the other case you wouldn't get both because you you got your natural immunity and you say no no more that's i don't need any more okay so so there's a little bit of difference but here's my argument when it comes to antibodies aren't more better does anybody disagree with that having more antibodies would be better now we will talk about the risks so hold that i'm not going to forget about them but when you say more antibodies are better than fewer so what would be the argument not to have both gives you more antibodies right so whether you have good natural protection or not you get a little extra little little turbo boost so is the government wrong in saying that being naturally immune since they can't tell if it's a good one a good immunity or a weak immunity and they can't tell how long it'll last would it not be good risk management if if the vaccines were perfectly safe and we'll talk about the risk but if they were perfectly safe wouldn't it make sense to do both and that's not the case there's no such thing as a vaccine that's perfectly safe but if it were wouldn't you say that getting a little extra would help you i would say that's just math that's just addition you can't you can't argue that this much immunity is better than this much immunity plus a little extra right there's no argument for that that's just math it's like money you know what's better twenty dollars or a hundred dollars there's no argument a hundred dollars is better than twenty dollars with antibodies i don't think there's an argument is there i mean i'm open to it but i haven't heard one isn't more antibodies better right so it really comes down to the extra risk doesn't it wouldn't you say the extra risk of the vaccination and i would think that a person who has natural immunity should make their own decision about whether they get vaccinated because the government can't tell you what your extra risk is nor can they tell you if you have enough immunity that you're in good shape with or without a vaccination they're not testing your antibodies or how long they're going to last they don't know and you don't know either if the government doesn't know what's up with you and you don't know what's up with you because you don't know if your natural immunity is the good kind of the bad kind you don't really know if those extra vaccinations would give you any protection but you do know there's a risk you don't know how big it is because nobody knows but you got a risk right all right so i would say that the argument is squarely on the side of uh letting people with natural immunity decide for themselves whether they want vaccinations and ap fact check uh might be technically true but i feel like it's leaving out some variables here all right so there was a twitter twitter user ward q normal i don't think that's his real name maybe it is i don't know but he says uh i will pay you a thousand dollars he was replying to somebody else if you can define critical race theory and point to a single k-12 school in virginia that has ever taught it so there's a thousand dollars if you can define critical race theory and point to a single time it's been taught do you think you could do that well every every republican thinks they can do that and get that thousand dollars you think you'll pay no he will not because no matter what you point to what's he gonna say that's not critical race theory you'll say well but look at this here's the book it's like totally based on critical race theory and what would ward q normal say when you ask for your thousand dollars having proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt ward q normal would say no that's not critical race theory no no you're mistaken that's that's just history you're just reading history so we have this weird situation where we have this thing that can't be defined by ordinary people i do believe you know experts could probably define it if they study this thing but for ordinary people they seem to be confused and therefore there seems to be some issue that the democrats are arguing no no it's imaginary it's not really there but let me tell you what people are really good at identifying people are not really good at identifying if something fits a definition so we're kind of arguing the definition of critical race theory we're not good at that but i'll tell you what we are good at we are good at knowing if the curriculum is anti-white i think we'd be good at knowing if it was anti-anything because that's pretty easy to spot i don't care what it's called you can call it critical race theory if you want call it anything you want but if it's anti-any ethnicity it doesn't matter which one you got to get rid of it there's no there's no wiggle room there if it's racist it doesn't matter which race you're targeting got to get rid of it that's that's not debatable so um here's how cnn refers to it they say the term critical race theory refers to the academic concept that racism has been systematically ingrained in american society following centuries of slavery and i would say that most people would agree that that's what critical race theory is would you agree that the big picture that's what it is but the issue is when they try to you know break it down into its lessons what's it turn into and what it turns into is something else when you turn it into action and and that conservatives are claiming that critical race theory teaches children to think the united states is racist now isn't that true these are two sentences both from an opinion piece on cnn today by manu raju alex rogers and melanie zanona and see if these two sentences and they're both right together make sense to you they say the term critical race theory blah blah means that uh racism has been systematically ingrained in american society and then they say but conservatives are claiming it teaches children to think the united states is racist but isn't that what they just said they just said that critical race theory says that we have systemic racism and then they're blaming acting like conservatives are dumb for saying it teaches you that the united states is racist isn't that exactly what they just said i mean you could say it's the system but then that's the united states it doesn't mean every person is necessarily racist but all right we'll get back to that in a minute so biden doesn't think he influences gas prices or no paul krugman so nobel winner nobel economic nobel in economics winner paul krugman says voters shouldn't be mad at biden because he has no control over the price of gasoline what you think the president has no control over our energy policy pretty sure he does as a michael schellenberger noted um us is the world's largest producer of oil and by biden froze new oil and gas leases in january and he may be open opening the strategic petroleum reserve to lower prices so he certainly has control some control not complete control of course and then i would think that any push toward green and penalizing oil would you have a have an impact et cetera well we got a great uh i think it's a drunk tweet from cher performer cher i i want to show you you can see her these are the all caps craziness and i'm going to read her tweet that again is in all caps but i'm going to read it uh in the character of a drunk person because i don't think you can read this sober i think it needs to be drunk allow me to get in character for a moment and now i read this as share after five martinis tweeting in all caps zhao works tireless to to number two work with kang and pass mills to help everyday americans and he's here from that on right left because gridlock well gop says some plans how to pick our bones clean if we fail geopoly or nazis and lockstep is different between democrats i assume she passed down toward the end of that i don't know but never never drink and tweet uh don't be a cher here's some fake news that you think is true and it turns on the word considering let me give you an a little primer story one day in the context of dealing with some medical issue of no consequence my uh doctor just some somewhat routinely asked me if i ever had thoughts of suicide or had i ever considered suicide and i said sure every day and i didn't realize that was the wrong answer because it turns out if you say that which of course is true i do consider it every day and then i rule it out do you know what else i consider jumping off the roof just to see if i can fly under my own power i think about that every day and then i rule it out i consider everything what the hell do you not consider do you remember when trump famously was asked if he was considering firing somebody in this administration as some press release and trump quite accurately said i consider firing everybody that's the right answer it's a perfect answer by the way trump does not get nearly enough credit for the answers that he does that are perfect because you know the the ones that are provocative and more fun but that's a perfect answer yes i consider firing every person on my staff every day that's the only right answer so here's the fake news that uh that the government or the i guess the doj is considering considering i say based on the aclu talking to the dog they considered or discussed paying 450 000 dollars apiece to every immigrant separated from their families at the border under trump now do you think that's true news or fake news that it was considered true news or fake well when biden was asked by fox news if it was true biden says it's garbage he says no it's not true it's garbage now the aclu a medial said wait a minute wait a minute we are literally talking to the department of justice right now and we are literally right now discussing 450 000 payments so who's right biden or the aclu go who's right which one has the right uh take on it both they're both right biden is 100 right because he's looking at it politically i assume and he is quite correctly saying there's no freaking way this is going to happen do you know why it's not going to happen because it would destroy the democratic party forever it would be the end do you think biden doesn't know that do you do you think he can maintain the black vote if he doesn't do reparations but he pays 450 000 to the immigrants coming across you think he can keep the black vote if he does that it's the end of the democratic party so when you say scott but it's been confirmed the aclu confirmed it yeah they're considering it they're considering it just like i consider taking my own life every single day it's things you think about that never happen so now of course you might say to yourself but it might be you know a smaller number well they could try but suppose they talked it down to let's just pick a number 450 000 i saw somebody on twitter said maybe they could get it down to 80 000 a piece that still still okay do you think biden's gonna want democrats to run again knowing that the democratic government gave people who broke a law in this country 80 thousand dollars a piece because we inconvenienced them i mean it's a more than inconvenience but you know i'm speaking sort of hyperbolic here um no no the democratic party would just be out of business completely even more than they probably are we'll talk about that but in my opinion it is so completely politically impossible that biden was telling the absolute truth by i think biden's answer that it was garbage is the accurate one politically speaking now of course the dog doj can act independently right but it looks like the republicans are going to do a bill and maybe stop the payments even if the dog wanted to blah blah so there will be plenty of machinations that will stop this from happening i don't think you have to worry about it so it's a semi-fake news it's true and false at the same time um tom elliott tweeted a little clip in which former obama campaign manager stephanie cutter was talking about the election in virginia and she said the one thing that we need to make sure of is that republicans in 2022 don't become the party of parents because they the democrats know they're in trouble if the republicans become obviously the ones who are taking care of children and the democrats are not is she right well too late too late uh as mr durr noted the truck driver who won his race um as mr durr notes uh he said that the democrats went too far because they were messing with our children so the truck driver be uh you know an established incumbent presumably on the message stop stop messing with our children now he said messing i use the f word but again the democrats have this blind spot about how republicans think that i don't know is the same on the other side it might be you know maybe it's maybe that works both ways but there's a gigantic blind spot let me give you there are two blind spots number one uh and i've talked about this when alec baldwin had his tragic firearms accident there and people on the left could not understand why people on the right were saying no it's alec baldwin's responsibility period when logical rational people were saying wait a minute rationally he was part of a system in which that that responsibility was delegated it's a mature system works all the time there's a reason they do it should have been safe he made a reasonable decision there's no liability now what's every gun owner say blah blah blah he had the gun in his hand it's his it's his responsibility period blah blah blah now the the left can't understand that because they're like ah don't you understand that clearly there can be exceptions right you can make an exception use your common sense and make an exception and the exception in this case would be the the the safety had been delegated to somebody who's a professional to make sure it's safe that should have been good enough common sense and then the gun owners say the gun was in his hand it's his responsibility that's the end of the conversation who's right well there's a weird hybrid going on here i believe that gun owners are rationally irrational here's what i mean the moment you say you know this isn't an absolute you know we're going to say there are gun safety rules and responsibilities and stuff but use your common sense so what happens the first time you say use your common sense how does that work out well here's common sense don't leave a loaded gun around where there are children like you wouldn't leave it on your table loaded if any kids were in the room right common sense no gun owner who was responsible would do that but let's say you use the other standard common sense does everybody have the same amount of common sense i don't think so you don't think that that would give permission for somebody to say yeah it's available to the kid but it's not going to happen because i'm closer to the table than the children are and if i see the children go for the gun i'll i'll just get there first i'm just using my common sense there's no way they're going to get the gun you know even though it's just sitting right out there because i'm closer to the table common sense people if my kid is heading toward the table i'm going to protect the gun then what happens boom right you lose your concentration you walk away a kid picks up the gun in trouble so i believe gun owners pursue something i would call rational irrationality because it works it is irrational to say there never can be an exception the reason they do it is because it works right it's an irrational system that's the only one that works so gun owners know that so when you argue no the responsibility with somebody else gun owners don't even want to have the conversation because you don't want to open that door a crack not even a crack because as soon as you say common sense is the standard people get killed every gun owner knows that now how many how many people on the left could have explained it with the nuance that i just explained it not many in fact i've never heard it right so see that was gonna dovetail into a really good point uh probably oh here here was the point the other blind spot that the democrats have is uh the flexibility of republicans am i right because you know you you can poke them forever it seems like you know they'll poke you oh you have to use this word i hate that word you have to use it anyway you have to use this word when you first ah but i don't want to yeah i'm poking you a little bit and then the conservatives said you know i got better things to do i'm not gonna i'm not gonna die on that hill and then i say you know i'm gonna raise your taxes a little bit just a little bit raise your taxes the republicans say hey we hate that we hate that ah you know i got a lot to work on today i'm not going to dedicate my life to this one little area of life and next to now they're just pushed and pushed and pushed and that's what's been happening it seems lately but here's the blind spot republicans are not flexible about children that's the red line have you heard of abortion republicans are not flexible about children and their safety and well-being and their education especially and as soon as the democrats crossed that line and said you know how about we educate your children the way we want to and by the way we're going to turn them against you we're going to tell your children that you're a racist your parents we're going to tell your children that you're a racist and you don't understand science and climate change and everything else that's the red line everything on the other side of the red line is different from everything on the other side everything on the other side a little bit flexible or at least maybe not willing to fight for it everything on the other side of the line that's game over that's game over so in my opinion 2022 and 2024 are largely already decided because the democrats you could call it an overreach but that really would be minimizing how big of a problem this is the the republicans are now squarely the party that's going to protect your kids as well as their own there's no question about that now and not only that but they have the perfect opening to partner with the black american public to fix schools because everybody wins then right so i you know of course it's always dangerous to make predictions uh more than a day in advance and even that's dangerous so lots of things could change between now and elections especially if you know trump makes some big waves somehow but um at this point the republicans have a death grip on power it'll take a while for the elections to you know make that happen but i don't see how a republican can lose unless they're trying at this point because all you have to do is say they're destroying your children we're protecting them what do you care about it's kind of over so here's the question if china wanted to destroy the west but they had lots of patience how would they do it well there are lots of ways they were doing it to do it but i think the main way they do it would be to um to destroy our most powerful uh let's say social cohesion and what is the most powerful social cohesion in this country well marriage was for a long time and we see that falling apart but the other one is the melting pot idea you know when i grew up and many of you as well we were really brainwashed into saying that the melting pot was our strength and our power and to respect it and i think i did i think the brainwashing work i'm happy about that i mean i call it brainwashing because children shouldn't be making their own decisions about the big stuff you kind of have to brainwash them later you hope that they can you know to think for themselves probably not but there isn't a system better than that because children can't really make big decisions um if i were china and i wanted to ruin the west i would fund anybody either secretly or not secretly who pushed critical race theory that would be with the wait for china to destroy the country because it would uh destroy the melting pot you know we're all we're all at least have equal opportunity um even if you think that's not true it's a good fiction to hold a country together and so i would strongly wonder if china's at all behind it whether they thought of it i have to wonder because china is more ethnically similar give me a fact check on that i think so that feels right so it would be an advantage to them if they could get our melting pot to fall apart and it looks like they're working on that or somebody is or it's just happening i don't know but it looks like it kind of is so corrosive it looks like it's coming from an enemy it doesn't look like it's coming from within um rachel maddow who's complaining about fox news saying they're building a campaign platform talking about crt as a big topic they're building a campaign platform for conservative candidates to run on it everywhere and then she says even though it's not actually taught anywhere even though it's not a real thing here's the thing if she has to hide behind the definition of the word that's her argument that i define it differently she's not even talking about the content or the reality of it just you know can i define this as crt or is it just stuff we say that happens to be in the same topic and compatible with it i feel that that's it's like a sign of knowing you've got nothing i mean knowing your gun is empty basically and all the gop has to do to prove anybody wrong is point to any example of it and apparently there are lots of them you know you can find the doc the school documents that show pretty clearly things that look like crt to people who have not studied crt so the republicans have this total winning play here they can just keep hammering on this crt thing and i think it's going to work for a long time now there are lots of topics where people are equally incentivized on both sides take abortion the people who are pro or anti-abortion are really worked up about it right so i'm not even sure which way that which way that works election wise because people are equally worked up on both sides but this is a weird topic because the crt stuff totally activates the right but on the other side there's not really much traction in other words it's an unbalanced topic it can only be bad for democrats that's it it can only be bad there's no sense where they can motivate their people to get more crt in the school do you see people marching in the streets yes more critical race training in the schools now of course there are plenty of advocates that's why it exists but in terms of the energy i would say the advocates are mostly people getting paid to be advocates i don't know that the public cares that much but the public republicans sure care that it's there or some version of it they don't like so in terms of a political topic it could not be more perfect for the for the republicans going forward and uh i think rachel maddow is correct that fox news either accidentally or wisely decided that this was going to be the winning issue and they basically created a topic that every republican can win on and i think that rachel maddow is quite correct in calling out fox news as having created a message and a method that republicans can use to win and they would support it with their platform all right i read a fascinating story from a experienced trucker about what the real supply chain problem is i'm not sure if this is different from what you've heard but he's certainly coming at it a little differently it goes like this the reason that there are not enough truckers to take away the stuff is because the job of being a trucker is terrible primarily now because of how long you have to wait for your truck to be loaded or unloaded so now you have multi-hour weights in which the independent truckers don't get paid you could have an eight-hour wait to you know get your get your container on your truck on top of that apparently there are we need something like 10 000 specialized chassis that we don't have because not every truck can carry a container you have to have a special chassis for that and we're apparently we're way underwater in the number of chassis now why is that somebody says i told you this for days i told you this for days so why is it that we suddenly don't have chassis does anybody know well i think it's because as soon as things get bunched up everything breaks at once we probably had enough chassis when there wasn't when there wasn't a big backlog but as soon as there's a big backlog you don't have enough chassis and then if you don't have enough chassis the backlog just keeps building up and then you can't do anything so basically nobody can move because there aren't chassis and there aren't truckers to take things away but even if there were they'd have to work 24 hours a day to move anything and there are a number of other you know regulatory problems etc so the interesting thing about this is it looks like everything broke at the same time there's something about this we don't understand still i feel like this got us closer but when you say something like we don't have enough chassis you have to explain why we had enough chassis a month ago or whenever this started why did we have enough chassis before and suddenly we don't it's not chassis right unless unless we're short just because we have so much backup follow the ownership and the money all right here's the point that you think that the trucking companies would fix this right economics should work so the trucking companies should want to fix this by kind of raising the salary of truckers or doing something but here's the problem truckers are the trucking companies are already getting rich because they're doing all the business that they can handle the trucking companies don't need to do anything they're also busy making money that they have more business than they can handle so do they have any incentive to do anything well yeah i mean more money is better but if you're making money like crazy and you're fully busy and you can't hire new truckers you're not really thinking in terms of expanding you're just you're just going to chase the money while you can so we have this weird set of problems that all happen simultaneously to create an economic incentive where nobody can do anything nobody has the economic incentive to change things enough they all have an economic incentive to make it better but nobody individually not the trucking companies not the shippers not the container makers nobody has enough economic incentive apparently to like do something big and you'd have to do something big yeah and i was also wondering it's kind of a big coincidence that we had this problem at the same time we're talking about decoupling from china because that's suspiciously convenient isn't it you know one of the things i tell you about fake news is that it's too convenient this is a little a little too convenient to the decoupling story but could be a coincidence i won't rule it out but it's a little convenient all right climate change summit uh turned into a joke with their private jets and i guess 60 of their meals had beef and dairy which is not cool apparently if you're attending a climate change summit china didn't even go so what was the point of the climate change summit if china didn't go russia didn't go the people who attended went in and private jets and they ate food that they would not recommend for the world i think this turned into a complete disaster right i think this is the moment that the world realized it's a fraud when now uh climate change is real in my opinion meaning that humans are you know making the planet warmer at some rate i'm less alarmed than other people are but i think the basic science probably right so the climate change summit which i think was supposed to be positive pr for getting something done turned into the opposite didn't it didn't show us for sure that it's a hoax because if the people who were flying in these private jets were even a little bit serious about it they'd be living it to model it you know they'd be they'd be leading us by modeling it they wouldn't be leading us by taking private jets to talk to each other um yeah so i think this is a huge failure i mean that's about it big as you can get here's my idea and another somebody else's idea for reparations you ready uh first idea is instead of giving 450 000 to each immigrant you could give each immigrant who was separated at the border under trump one hunter biden painting worth 450 000 anybody have a problem with that plan now i know it would keep hunter busy for a while but that's part of the benefit of the plan keep them away from the rest of people right yeah one hunter by painting to every person who got separated at the border apparently somebody else had that idea before i did but i don't know who it was uh here's my idea for reparations and first i'll give you uh raul davis's idea so on twitter raul davis who who you should follow so look for raul davis ceo branding expert he'll pop right up and he said he tweeted the government should create an nft that's a little digital piece of art uh an nft reparations fund half proceeds to go to black reparations get together the top white liberal actors artists and business leaders they should all be willing to provide nft artwork for the government program it's not a bad idea is it all the people who want reparations the famous ones they could create a little piece of art and just sell it and then the proceeds go to some kind of reparations fund but i'm gonna i'm gonna take it one step further are you ready to have your mind blown ready i'm gonna blow your mind we are and i think you'd agree and facebook certainly agrees transitioning as a species from a sort of organic species into a better verse digital virtual reality species true or false do you accept the premise might be 20 years might be 30 years but do you expect do you accept the premise that we're guaranteed to be spending a lot of time in the multiverse maybe not your generation but the one after i'm going to say yes stay with me here don't don't argue the assumptions yet now if we believe that uh black americans were highly disadvantaged in the real world because of slavery and then systemic racism that grows from that what would be the one time in human history we could fix that see where i'm going you could you could make the reparations in the metaverse you could give every black american who uh would be let's say the recipient of reparations if we were to do reparations you could give them digital uh assets that would have actual monetary value when they entered the metaverse so every black american who signs up for the metaverse whether it's zuckerberg's version or another one gets automatic a digital payment and they start with an advantage what do you think here's here's another way to do it now would this be fair no of course not it wouldn't be fair but i i'd have a conversation about it i mean i'd at least talk about it here's another version give every uh black american in the form of reparations uh some when tokens now the when is my own and my uh x startups token the startup is gone but the uh the token remains because they live forever on the blockchain you could give everybody a bunch of when tokens or some other crypto but i'll just pick my own and then just say to people hey if uh if you'd like reparations to be a thing buy some when for yourself because if you buy one for yourself just as a speculation or investment i wouldn't call it an investment speculation if you buy it for yourself you can make some money if it goes up you can lose some money if it goes down but if it goes up and just the fact that you bought it should make the when tokens that the black owners of it have go up in value so you could simply make yourself rich and also black americans who got reparations rich simply by investing in it now again it's not really an investment because crypto i don't consider an investment what about it who loses nobody right nobody loses because there's a whole bunch of when tokens you could just give a bunch away and say all right everybody gets one when and then say if you want people to have reparations buy some when you'll make money too because yours might go up at the same time not guaranteed but if it does suddenly black americans have a nice little uh little pot of crypto that they can turn into real cash so those are my ideas and raul raul's ideas as well and i don't know that these are good ideas i like to put out the bad idea version and then maybe that makes somebody think well that's a bad idea but if you change this part it might work that's usually the philosophy with which i do this all right that is all i have to do to talk about today and i will talk to you

good morning everybody and welcome to an

experience that i think will be

unparalleled

at least until tomorrow and it's called

the simultaneous sip and coffee with

scott adams

and i don't think there's anything

better in this reality or any metaverse

whatsoever

but if you'd like to take it up a notch

i think you do all you need is a cup

copper mugger glasses tanker chelsea

steiner canteen juggerflask vessel of

any kind

fill it with your favorite liquid

i like coffee

and join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure the dopamine of the day the

thing makes

everything better except for

the brandon administration

more

go

oh yeah

yeah the antibodies just coursing

through my body

whoa whoa got a little extra antibodies

in my shoulder

gonna work it out work it out spread it

out there we go

you don't want all your antibodies in

one part

you need to need to get moving shake

them around a little bit

well you also that ron desantis

is

once again following in president

trump's

shadow and footsteps

came up with his own sticky nickname

yes he calls it the brandon

administration as i borrowed his joke

just a moment ago

the brampton administration

always gets a big laugh from the

partisans let's talk about the things

that are happening

uh things are happening

let's see uh vaccination mandates going

into effect

uh january 4th for big employers over

100 people

what is there to say about that

you know i could say i don't like them

you could say you don't like them

but here's the only thing i'm going to

add to this

if you think it's the government that is

mandating this you're completely wrong

that's probably what most you think you

think the government is mandating it

um

and

i would argue that that's only

technically true

it is true that the government is

mandating it and they have rules and

whatnot

but i remind you

as uh rasmussen reminded me today

they've got a new poll rasmussen poll

52 percent of uh 52 percent

of the public

um surveyed

support workers refusing vaccinations

but that means

there's a whole bunch of people who

don't

so

just slightly more than half of the

country

is in favor of you know not doing these

mandates here's the thing you need to

know

if that were 75 it wouldn't be happening

how many disagree with me

so here's the point right now

52 percent of workers

support not making people have to get

vaccinations so they're opposed to the

mandate but only 52 percent

hypothetically if it were 75

would it be happening

anybody

does anybody think it would happen if it

were 75 we're against it

i don't think so

i don't think so now you could disagree

where where that number is 75 or 90 or

whatever but my point is the only reason

the government can do this is because

the public

by enough people are on board

just barely

if it feels like it's sort of a slim

majority but you're not you're not

dealing with the government you're

dealing with your fellow citizens

if you could convince you know half of

the remaining people who were four

mandates

to take your side you'd have 75 people

against mandates and they just wouldn't

happen

does anybody doubt that

that's my take on it so i i think that

we often um

mistake where power is

power is with the people completely

uh in this country that will just always

be the case at least for anything long

term

if we have you know if we need quick

decisions you know such as a war

situation then we actually prefer the

government to do it because it has to be

quick but for these longer term

considered

you know topics

we really have the power

completely

but we have to be on the same side or we

have nothing

so

that's the difference i suppose if the

government can keep us confused and

ignorant they do have the power

um

there are effectively three political

parties now

would you agree

two of them are called democrats you got

your progressives and then your standard

standard democrats i guess but then

republicans are more of a unified so

it's like three

three different parties

and

let me make a suggestion

this has opened up the door

very much though

for a new party maybe for the first time

i don't think that a third party really

had a choice or a chance

uh and maybe they still don't but it's

the biggest opening i've seen here's how

i would do it

this is me running for president as an

independent starting my own third party

or fourth party depending on how you

count them

i would call it

the middle party

i would call it

the middle party

and i would say i oppose the extreme

right and the extreme left

and most people do

unless you're wed

to the name on your

registration

consider the middle party

because i'm going to give you stuff that

makes sense i might raise your taxes a

little

but not a lot and i would do it with the

support of economists and and lots of uh

and lots of support that it makes sense

economically

uh i might

do something that would benefit the

black population of this country

but it will make sense it won't be

stupid

right

so

don't you think that a the right

candidate you'd have to be the right

person but don't you think that the

middle party and the name of it is very

important

if you say you're some other party

then people say oh why do i want to be

that but if you say you're the middle

party

guess what

you can stay republican

you can stay democrat

you're just voting for the middle

a lot of people like the middle but they

prefer to be a republican

they rep prefer to be a democrat

but they might vote for the middle

so give them a give them something to

vote for

and then every time somebody says you

know what side are you on you just stake

out the middle

the sensible middle and say look this is

where the people are

the people are in the sensible middle

take any topic

take any topic

uh

the school system

you could say uh yeah we're going to

keep our public schools but we're going

to keep the option open

for competition

totally in the middle totally supported

and you know you could just go right

down the line on different topics how

about abortion

if you're running for president you have

to talk about it but here's how i'd

handle it if i were the head of the

middle party

i'd say it's not a federal government

decision

and i'm not going to make it one

because i think the authority for that

should be pushed down to the lowest

level you can get it state level ideally

and i just say i'm out

i'm the middle

whatever whatever the country wants

state by state

it's fine with me

i think that could win you'd have to

have exactly the right candidate though

everybody's talking about why did yunkin

win

have you noticed that whenever anything

happens there are lots of explanations

when trump

unexpectedly won in 2016

what was

the news all about the next day

it was all about why he won

and all the reasons were different it

was all over the place i think

cnn had 14 different reasons he won

but here's the thing

with a big complicated thing like an

election

it's never one thing

it's all of the things

every one of the things had to be the

way they were for him to get the result

he did if any of those things had been

different

you were lost so is it sensible to say

there's one there's one

thing not really

because it's sort of the haystack thing

it might be the last straw

but it's just one of the straws right is

the last straw the special one

no it just came last so there might be

something that you know breaks

breaks the log jam there but it's not

special there's nothing about that one

straw

so here are the things people are saying

about younkins number one

it's just a historical pattern

i said this yesterday it turns out that

this is exactly the result

you could have predicted based on

historical pattern

that if you have a president one party

virginia will go to the other party

and eight times in a row it's happened

so that's one way

the other of course is that the focus

was on critical race theory

but i have a uh

and and you know of course young can

want to ran a good campaign etc

and i think he did a good job

of keeping some distance from trump and

it helped that he didn't have any

history as a politician

so those are all good

again you can't say there's one reason

you want it's all of those things had to

happen

but i would like to add another variable

just speculation

i have a hypothesis and maybe somebody's

i haven't googled this maybe it's

already been tested

but

i feel as if i've seen a study where you

can show you can show people who don't

know who the candidates are could be

some other country where you're not

familiar with the candidates and that

people can guess who would win the

election

by looking at their

photographs did you know that

that the public

i and i i need a fact check on this but

i read this a long time ago

i think that that people can tell

who's going to win an election by

looking at the photographs even without

even knowing the names of the candidates

or what they're running for

can somebody confirm that's true i think

that's true

now i would add a second factor

i would i would bet that i now i don't

know if this is generalizable but

probably it is i'm just going to say it

about myself

i believe that if you gave me audio

clips

of each candidate

in a closest race so it'd have to be a

race

where you think that both have at least

a chance of winning you know not not

blowouts

but

in a close race if you give me just the

audio

of each of their speeches for

uh

10 to 15 seconds it wouldn't matter what

part of the what topic it was

10 to 15 seconds of just hearing them

talk

i can pick the winner

that's my claim

now not every time of course but i'll

bet i could get a 75 of the time plus

what do you think

do you think i could get that right 75

percent of the time

i don't know

but if you heard obama talking and

compared him to whoever he ran against i

think you could have picked him

and

and when i heard an audio of

jungkin talking

compared to

terry mcauliffe talking

i said to myself

if this is close

young kid's going to win

because there's something in his voice

or his presentation or his confidence or

i don't know what it is

i don't know i don't exactly know what

it is but there's definitely such a

thing as

command voice wouldn't you say

nobody's going to argue with that right

there is such a thing as command voice

and women have it too right it's not a

gender thing

women can have a command voice if you've

ever worked for

a really good female boss

oh they haven't

they have command voice it's just the

female version of it

but it's command voice

and i thought young kid had command

voice and i thought mcauliffe was weak

there so when i heard it i was like whoa

that doesn't even sound close to me it

looks like it looks like one good

candidate and one not so good just on

that 15 seconds of voice and i said to

myself i think this guy's gonna win and

i wasn't even following the race

command presence that's i guess that's

the better

better phrase for it right

all right

we have some more fun stuff going on

ap

did a fact check today

see if you agree with this fact check

what do you think

ap says posts continue to circulate

online

falsely claiming that coven 19 survivors

don't need vaccines because of natural

immunity

in fact says the ap fact checkers that

protection is variable and not long

lasting so vaccines are still

recommended

here's our recent blah blah

um

so here's my take on that here's the

exact claim

that uh

that if you're if you've already been

infected and recovered

that your protection is variable and not

long lasting

is that true

so before before we get to all of it the

bigger picture is the limited claim

correct

that natural immunity is variable

well first of all just a little just ask

you is it variable do you think there

are people with good natural immunity

and some with not so good

it's true right

so i would say that's true people have

is variable

and it's also not long lasting

well what's that mean

what does not long lasting mean

well it means anything they wanted to so

i'm not going to say it's false

because wouldn't you like your immunity

to last forever

you would right so the standard that

would make you happy is it lasts forever

because there are other immunities that

seem to last forever

and they're saying that this doesn't do

that

so it's not long enough

to make us happy is that fair is it fair

to say that unlike

unlike other uh

types of natural immunity it wouldn't be

as as good

right but now let's talk about the

vaccination itself yeah you're getting

ahead of me

the vaccination itself is that

variable

yes it is

same as natural immunity has everybody

on the same page so far

that there's great individual

variability

both in natural immunity

and in vaccine immunity we're all on the

same page in that right very variability

so no difference there

in the sense that they're both variable

you know it might be a different

variability but plenty enough to say

that they're similar

how about whether vaccinations

themselves are long lasting

well no that's why we get boosters so

you've got vaccinations that are not

that are very variable

they're variable let's say

vaccinations are variable and not

long-lasting natural immunity is also

variable and not long-lasting so

do you say to yourself therefore

therefore i should not get a vaccination

because these are two things that are

the same

they're both variable

and they're both not long lasting

is that is that good thinking now we're

going to talk about vaccine side effects

but for the moment is that good thinking

it's not good thinking right so um

i'm going to just help you on the the

thinking part of it here right your

opinion is your own

and none of us are going to have enough

really information for

in my opinion to have an informed

opinion

there's a little bit of guessing all

right here's what's here's what the

difference is

if you get the vaccination

do you have the option of giving

yourself natural immunity on top of it

well accidentally or i suppose you could

but generally that's not going to happen

right you're not going to

intentionally get infected most people

aren't

some might

whereas if you get natural immunity you

could make the decision to get

vaccinated or not so they don't work

equally in both directions

are we okay so far

they're not equivalent

because in one case you can get both in

a logical rational way in the other case

you wouldn't get both

because you you got your natural

immunity and you say no

no more that's i don't need any more

okay

so so there's a little bit of difference

but here's my argument

when it comes to antibodies aren't more

better

does anybody disagree with that having

more antibodies

would be better

now we will talk about the risks so hold

that i'm not going to forget about them

but when you say more antibodies are

better than fewer

so what would be the argument not to

have both

gives you more antibodies right so

whether you have good natural protection

or not

you get a little extra little little

turbo boost

so is the government wrong in saying

that being naturally immune since they

can't tell if it's a good one

a good immunity or a weak immunity

and they can't tell how long it'll last

would it not be good risk management

if if the vaccines were perfectly safe

and we'll talk about the risk but if

they were perfectly safe

wouldn't it make sense to do both

and that's not the case

there's no such thing as a vaccine

that's perfectly safe

but if it were

wouldn't you say that getting a little

extra would help you

i would say that's just math

that's just addition

you can't you can't argue that this much

immunity

is better than this much immunity plus a

little extra

right there's no argument for that

that's just math it's like money

you know what's better twenty dollars or

a hundred dollars

there's no argument

a hundred dollars is better than twenty

dollars with antibodies

i don't think there's an argument is

there i mean i'm open to it but i

haven't heard one isn't more antibodies

better

right

so it really comes down to the extra

risk doesn't it

wouldn't you say

the extra risk of the vaccination

and i would think that a person who has

natural immunity

should

make their own decision

about whether they get vaccinated

because the government can't tell you

what your extra risk is

nor can they tell you if you have enough

immunity that you're in good shape with

or without a vaccination they're not

testing your antibodies or how long

they're going to last they don't know

and you don't know either

if the government doesn't know what's up

with you and you don't know what's up

with you because you don't know if your

natural immunity is the good kind of the

bad kind you don't really know if those

extra vaccinations would give you any

protection

but you do know there's a risk

you don't know how big it is because

nobody knows

but you got a risk

right

all right

so i would say that the argument is

squarely on the side of uh letting

people with natural immunity decide for

themselves whether they want

vaccinations

and ap fact check

uh might be technically true but i feel

like it's leaving out some variables

here

all right

so there was a twitter twitter user

ward q normal i don't think that's his

real name maybe it is i don't know

but he says uh i will pay you a thousand

dollars he was replying to somebody else

if you can define critical race theory

and point to a single k-12 school in

virginia that has ever taught it so

there's a thousand dollars

if you can define critical race theory

and point to a single time it's been

taught

do you think you could do that well

every every republican thinks they can

do that and get that thousand dollars

you think you'll pay

no he will not because no matter what

you point to

what's he gonna say

that's not critical race theory

you'll say well

but look at this here's the book it's

like totally based on critical race

theory

and what would ward q normal say

when you ask for your thousand dollars

having proven it beyond a shadow of a

doubt

ward q normal would say

no that's not critical race theory no

no you're mistaken that's that's just

history

you're just reading history

so

we have this weird situation where we

have this thing that can't be defined by

ordinary people i do believe you know

experts could probably define it if they

study this thing but for ordinary people

they seem to be confused

and therefore there seems to be some

issue

that the democrats are arguing no no

it's imaginary it's not really there but

let me tell you

what people are really good at

identifying

people are not really good at

identifying

if something fits a definition

so we're kind of arguing the definition

of critical race theory we're not good

at that but i'll tell you what we are

good at

we are good at knowing if the curriculum

is anti-white

i think we'd be good at knowing if it

was anti-anything

because that's pretty easy to spot

i don't care what it's called

you can call it critical race

theory if you want

call it anything you want

but if it's anti-any ethnicity

it doesn't matter which one

you got to get rid of it

there's no

there's no wiggle room there

if it's racist

it doesn't matter which race you're

targeting

got to get rid of it

that's that's not debatable

so

um

here's how cnn refers to it they say the

term critical race theory refers to the

academic concept that racism has been

systematically ingrained in american

society

following centuries of slavery

and i would say that most people would

agree that that's what critical race

theory is would you agree

that the big picture that's what it is

but the issue is when they try to you

know break it down into its lessons

what's it turn into

and what it turns into is something else

when you turn it into action

and

and that conservatives are claiming that

critical race theory teaches children to

think the united states is racist

now isn't that true

these are two sentences both from an

opinion piece on cnn today by manu raju

alex rogers and melanie

zanona

and see if these two sentences and

they're both right together

make sense to you

they say the term critical race theory

blah blah

means that uh racism has been

systematically ingrained in american

society

and then they say but conservatives

are claiming it teaches children to

think the united states is racist

but isn't that what they just said

they just said that critical race theory

says that we have systemic racism

and then they're blaming acting like

conservatives are dumb for saying it

teaches you that the united states is

racist isn't that exactly what they just

said

i mean you could say it's the system

but then that's the united states

it doesn't mean every person is

necessarily racist but

all right

we'll get back to that in a minute so

biden doesn't

think he influences gas prices or no

paul krugman

so nobel winner nobel economic

nobel in economics winner paul krugman

says

voters shouldn't be mad at biden because

he has no control over the price of

gasoline

what

you think the president has no control

over our energy policy

pretty sure he does

as a michael schellenberger noted

um us is the world's largest producer

of oil and by biden froze new oil and

gas leases in january

and he may be open opening the strategic

petroleum reserve to lower prices

so he certainly has control

some control not complete control of

course

and then i would think that any push

toward green

and

penalizing oil would you have a have an

impact et cetera

well we got a great uh i think it's a

drunk tweet from cher

performer cher

i i want to show you you can see her

these are the all caps

craziness and i'm going to read her

tweet

that again is in all caps but i'm going

to read it uh in the character of a

drunk person

because i don't think you can read this

sober i think it needs to be drunk

allow me to get in character for a

moment

and now

i read this as share after five martinis

tweeting in all caps

zhao works tireless to

to number two work with kang and pass

mills to help everyday americans and

he's here from that on right left

because gridlock well gop says some

plans how to

pick our bones clean if we fail geopoly

or nazis and lockstep is different

between democrats

i assume she passed down toward the end

of that i don't know

but never never drink and tweet

uh don't be a cher

here's some fake news that you think is

true

and it turns on the word considering

let me give you an a little primer story

one day in the context of dealing with

some

medical issue of no consequence

my uh

doctor just some somewhat routinely

asked me if i ever

had thoughts of suicide or had i ever

considered suicide

and i said sure every day

and i didn't realize that was the wrong

answer

because it turns out if you say that

which of course is true

i do consider it every day and then i

rule it out

do you know what else i consider

jumping off the roof

just to see if i can fly under my own

power

i think about that every day

and then i rule it out

i consider everything

what the hell do you not consider

do you remember when

trump famously was asked if he was

considering

firing somebody in this administration

as some press release and trump quite

accurately said i consider firing

everybody

that's the right answer it's a perfect

answer by the way

trump does not get nearly enough credit

for the answers that he does that are

perfect because you know the the ones

that are provocative and more fun but

that's a perfect answer yes i consider

firing every person on my staff every

day

that's the only right answer

so here's the fake news

that uh

that the government or the i guess the

doj is considering

considering i say

based on the aclu talking to the dog

they considered

or discussed

paying 450 000 dollars apiece to every

immigrant separated from their families

at the border under trump

now

do you think that's true news or fake

news

that it was considered

true news or fake well when

biden was asked by fox news

if it was true biden says it's garbage

he says no it's not true it's garbage

now the aclu a medial said wait a minute

wait a minute we are literally talking

to the department of justice right now

and we are literally

right now

discussing 450 000 payments

so who's right

biden

or the aclu go

who's right

which one has the right

uh take on it

both

they're both right

biden is 100 right

because he's looking at it politically i

assume

and he is quite correctly saying there's

no freaking way this is going to happen

do you know why it's not going to happen

because it would destroy the democratic

party forever

it would be the end

do you think biden doesn't know that

do you do you think he can maintain the

black vote if he doesn't do reparations

but he pays 450 000 to the immigrants

coming across you think he can keep the

black vote if he does that

it's the end of the democratic party

so when you say scott

but

it's been confirmed the aclu confirmed

it

yeah they're considering it

they're considering it just like i

consider taking my own life every single

day

it's things you think about that never

happen

so

now of course you might say to yourself

but it might be

you know a smaller number

well

they could try but suppose they talked

it down to let's just pick a number 450

000 i saw somebody on twitter said maybe

they could get it down to 80 000 a piece

that still still okay

do you think biden's gonna want

democrats to run again

knowing that the democratic government

gave people who broke a law in this

country 80 thousand dollars a piece

because we inconvenienced them

i mean it's a more than inconvenience

but you know i'm speaking sort of

hyperbolic here

um

no no the democratic party would just be

out of business completely even more

than they probably are we'll talk about

that

but

in my opinion it is so completely

politically impossible that biden was

telling the absolute truth

by i think biden's answer that it was

garbage is the accurate one

politically speaking now of course the

dog doj can act independently right

but it looks like the republicans are

going to do a bill and maybe stop the

payments even if

the dog wanted to blah blah so there

will be plenty of

machinations that will stop this from

happening i don't think you have to

worry about it

so it's a semi-fake news it's true and

false at the same time

um

tom elliott

tweeted a little clip in which former

obama campaign manager stephanie cutter

was talking about the election in

virginia and she said the one thing that

we need to make sure of is that

republicans in 2022

don't become the party of parents

because they

the democrats know they're in trouble

if the republicans

become obviously the ones who are taking

care of children

and the democrats are not is she right

well

too late

too late

uh as mr durr

noted the truck driver who won his race

um as mr durr notes

uh

he said that the democrats went too far

because they were messing with our

children

so the truck driver be uh you know an

established incumbent

presumably on the message stop stop

messing with our children

now he said messing i use the f word

but

again

the democrats have this blind spot about

how republicans think

that i don't know is the same on the

other side it might be you know maybe

it's maybe that works both ways

but

there's a gigantic blind spot

let me give you there are two blind

spots

number one uh and i've talked about this

when alec baldwin had his tragic

firearms accident there

and

people on the left could not understand

why people on the right were saying no

it's alec baldwin's responsibility

period

when logical rational people were saying

wait a minute rationally

he was part of a system in which that

that responsibility was delegated it's a

mature system works all the time there's

a reason they do it

should have been safe he made a

reasonable decision there's no liability

now what's every gun owner say

blah blah blah he had the gun in his

hand it's his it's his responsibility

period

blah blah blah

now the the left can't understand that

because they're like ah

don't you understand

that clearly there can be exceptions

right you can make an exception

use your common sense

and make an exception

and the exception in this case would be

the the

the safety had been delegated to

somebody who's a professional to make

sure it's safe

that should have been good enough common

sense

and then the gun owners say

the gun was in his hand it's his

responsibility that's the end of the

conversation

who's right

well

there's a weird hybrid going on here i

believe that gun owners

are rationally irrational

here's what i mean

the moment you say you know this isn't

an absolute

you know we're going to say there are

gun safety rules and responsibilities

and stuff but use your common sense

so what happens the first time you say

use your common sense

how does that work out

well here's common sense don't leave a

loaded gun

around where there are children

like you wouldn't leave it on your table

loaded if any kids were in the room

right common sense no gun owner who was

responsible would do that but let's say

you use the other standard common sense

does everybody have the same amount of

common sense

[Laughter]

i don't think so

you don't think that that would give

permission for somebody to say yeah it's

available to the kid but it's not going

to happen because i'm closer to the

table than the children are and if i see

the children go for the gun i'll i'll

just get there first i'm just using my

common sense there's no way they're

going to get the gun

you know even though it's just sitting

right out there because i'm closer to

the table

common sense people if my kid is heading

toward the table

i'm going to protect the gun

then what happens

boom

right

you lose your concentration you walk

away a kid picks up the gun in trouble

so

i believe gun owners

pursue something i would call rational

irrationality

because it works

it is irrational to say there never can

be an exception

the reason they do it is because it

works

right

it's an irrational system that's the

only one that works so gun owners know

that

so when you argue no the responsibility

with somebody else gun owners don't even

want to have the conversation because

you don't want to open that door a crack

not even a crack because as soon as you

say common sense

is the standard

people get killed

every gun owner knows that now how many

how many people on the left

could have explained it

with the nuance that i just explained it

not many in fact i've never heard it

right

so

see that was gonna

dovetail into a really good point uh

probably oh here here was the point the

other blind spot that the democrats have

is uh the flexibility of republicans

am i right

because

you know you you can poke them forever

it seems like you know they'll poke you

oh you have to use this word

i hate that word you have to use it

anyway you have to use this word when

you first ah but i don't want to yeah

i'm poking you a little bit and then the

conservatives said you know

i got better things to do i'm not gonna

i'm not gonna die on that hill

and then i say you know i'm gonna raise

your taxes a little bit just a little

bit raise your taxes the republicans say

hey we hate that we hate that ah you

know

i got a lot to work on today

i'm not going to dedicate my life to

this one little area of life

and next to now they're just pushed and

pushed and pushed and that's what's been

happening it seems lately

but here's the blind spot

republicans are not flexible about

children

that's the red line

have you heard of abortion

republicans are not flexible about

children

and their safety and well-being and

their education especially

and as soon as the democrats crossed

that line and said you know how about we

educate your children the way we want to

and by the way we're going to turn them

against you we're going to tell your

children that you're a racist

your parents we're going to tell your

children

that you're a racist and you don't

understand science and climate change

and everything else

that's the red line

everything on the other side of the red

line is different from everything on the

other side

everything on the other side

a little bit flexible or at least maybe

not willing to fight for it

everything on the other side of the line

that's game over

that's game over

so in my opinion 2022 and 2024

are largely already decided

because the democrats you could call it

an overreach

but that really would be minimizing how

big of a problem this is

the the

republicans are now squarely

the party that's going to protect your

kids as well as their own

there's no question about that now and

not only that but they have the perfect

opening to partner with the black

american public

to fix schools because everybody wins

then right so

i you know of course it's always

dangerous to make predictions uh more

than a day in advance and even that's

dangerous so lots of things could change

between now and elections especially if

you know trump

makes some big waves somehow

but

um at this point the republicans have a

death grip on power

it'll take a while for the elections to

you know make that happen but i don't

see how a republican can lose unless

they're trying at this point

because all you have to do is say

they're destroying your children we're

protecting them

what do you care about

it's kind of over

so

here's the question if china wanted to

destroy the west but they had lots of

patience how would they do it

well there are lots of ways they were

doing it to do it but i think the main

way they do it would be to

um

to destroy our most powerful

uh let's say social cohesion

and what is the most powerful social

cohesion in this country

well marriage was for a long time and we

see that falling apart

but the other one is the melting pot

idea

you know when i grew up and many of you

as well

we were really brainwashed into saying

that the melting pot was our strength

and our power and to respect it

and i think i did

i think the brainwashing work i'm happy

about that i mean i call it brainwashing

because children shouldn't be making

their own decisions about the big stuff

you kind of have to brainwash them later

you hope that they can you know to think

for themselves

probably not

but there isn't a system better than

that because children can't really make

big decisions

um if i were china and i wanted to ruin

the west i would fund anybody

either secretly or not secretly who

pushed critical race theory

that would be with the wait for china to

destroy the country because it would uh

destroy the melting pot you know we're

all we're all at least have equal

opportunity

um even if you think that's not true

it's a good fiction to hold a country

together

and

so i would strongly wonder

if china's at all behind it whether they

thought of it

i have to wonder

because china is more ethnically similar

give me a fact check on that i think so

that feels right so it would be an

advantage to them if they could get our

melting pot to fall apart and it looks

like they're working on that or somebody

is or it's just happening i don't know

but it looks like

it kind of is so corrosive it looks like

it's coming from an enemy it doesn't

look like it's coming from within

um

rachel maddow who's complaining about

fox news saying they're building a

campaign platform

talking about crt as a big topic they're

building a campaign platform for

conservative candidates to run on it

everywhere

and then she says even though it's not

actually taught anywhere

even though it's not a real thing

here's the thing

if she has to hide behind the definition

of the word that's her argument

that i define it differently she's not

even talking about the content or the

reality of it just you know

can i define this as crt or is it just

stuff we say that happens to be in the

same topic and compatible with it

i feel that that's

it's like a sign of knowing you've got

nothing

i mean knowing your gun is empty

basically

and

all the gop has to do

to prove anybody wrong is point to any

example of it and apparently there are

lots of them you know you can find the

doc the school documents that show

pretty clearly

things that look like crt to people who

have not studied crt

so the republicans have this total

winning play here

they can just keep hammering on this crt

thing

and i think it's going to work for a

long time

now there are lots of topics where

people are equally

incentivized on both sides

take abortion

the people who are pro or anti-abortion

are really worked up about it right so

i'm not even sure which way that

which way that works election wise

because people are equally worked up on

both sides

but this is a weird topic because the

crt stuff

totally activates the right

but on the other side there's not really

much traction in other words it's an

unbalanced

topic

it can only be bad for democrats that's

it

it can only be bad

there's no sense where they can

motivate their people to get more crt in

the school

do you see people marching in the

streets yes

more critical race training in the

schools now of course there are plenty

of advocates that's why it exists but in

terms of the energy

i would say the advocates are mostly

people getting paid to be advocates

i don't know that the public cares that

much

but the public republicans sure care

that it's there or some version of it

they don't like

so in terms of a political topic it

could not be more perfect

for the

for the republicans going forward

and uh i think rachel maddow is correct

that fox news

either accidentally or wisely

decided that this was going to be the

winning issue and they basically created

a topic

that every republican can win on

and i think that rachel maddow is quite

correct in calling out fox news as

having created a

message and a method that republicans

can use to win

and they would support it with their

platform

all right

i read a fascinating story from a

experienced trucker about what the real

supply chain problem is i'm not sure if

this is different from what you've heard

but he's certainly coming at it a little

differently

it goes like this

the reason that there are not enough

truckers

to take away the stuff

is because the job of being a trucker is

terrible primarily now because of how

long you have to wait

for your truck to be loaded or unloaded

so now you have multi-hour weights in

which the independent truckers don't get

paid you could have an eight-hour wait

to you know get your get your container

on your truck

on top of that apparently there are we

need something like 10 000 specialized

chassis that we don't have

because not every truck can carry a

container you have to have a special

chassis for that and we're apparently

we're way underwater in the number of

chassis

now

why is that

somebody says i told you this for days

i told you this for days

so

why is it that we suddenly don't have

chassis does anybody know

well i think it's because as soon as

things get bunched up everything breaks

at once

we probably had enough chassis when

there wasn't

when there wasn't a big backlog

but as soon as there's a big backlog you

don't have enough chassis

and then if you don't have enough

chassis the backlog just keeps building

up and then you can't do anything so

basically

nobody can move because there aren't

chassis and there aren't truckers to

take things away

but even if there were

they'd have to work 24 hours a day to

move anything

and there are a number of other you know

regulatory problems etc so the

interesting thing about this is it looks

like everything broke at the same time

there's something about this we don't

understand still i feel like this got us

closer but when you say something like

we don't have enough chassis

you have to explain why we had enough

chassis a month ago or whenever this

started why did we have enough chassis

before and suddenly we don't it's not

chassis right

unless

unless we're short just because we have

so much

backup

follow the ownership and the money all

right here's the point that you think

that the trucking companies would fix

this

right economics should work

so the trucking companies should want to

fix this by

kind of raising the salary of truckers

or

doing something but here's the problem

truckers are the trucking companies are

already getting rich because they're

doing all the business that they can

handle

the trucking companies don't need to do

anything

they're also busy making money

that they have more business than they

can handle

so do they have any incentive to do

anything well yeah i mean more money is

better

but if you're making money like crazy

and you're fully busy and you can't hire

new truckers you're not really thinking

in terms of expanding you're just you're

just going to chase the money while you

can

so we have this weird set of problems

that all happen simultaneously to create

an economic incentive where nobody can

do anything

nobody has the economic incentive

to change things enough

they all have an economic incentive to

make it better

but nobody individually not the trucking

companies not the shippers not the

container makers nobody has enough

economic incentive apparently

to like do something big and you'd have

to do something big

yeah and i was also wondering it's kind

of a big coincidence that we had this

problem at the same time we're talking

about decoupling from china because

that's suspiciously convenient isn't it

you know one of the things i tell you

about fake news

is that it's too convenient

this is a little

a little too convenient to the

decoupling story

but could be a coincidence i won't rule

it out but it's a little convenient

all right

climate change summit uh turned into a

joke with their private jets and i guess

60 of their meals had beef and dairy

which is not cool apparently if you're

attending a climate change summit china

didn't even go

so what was the point of the climate

change summit

if china didn't go russia didn't go

the people who attended went in and

private jets and they ate

food that they would not recommend for

the world

i think this turned into a complete

disaster right

i think this is the moment that the

world realized it's a fraud

when

now uh climate change is real in my

opinion

meaning that humans are you know making

the planet warmer at some rate i'm less

alarmed than other people are but i

think the basic science probably right

so the climate change summit which i

think was supposed to be positive pr

for getting something done

turned into the opposite didn't it

didn't show us for sure

that it's a hoax

because if the people who were flying in

these private jets

were even a little bit serious about it

they'd be living it to model it you know

they'd be they'd be leading us by

modeling it they wouldn't be leading us

by taking private jets

to talk to each other

um

yeah so i think this is a huge

failure

i mean that's about it big as you can

get

here's my idea and another somebody

else's idea for reparations you ready

uh first idea is instead of giving 450

000 to each immigrant you could give

each immigrant who was separated at the

border under trump

one hunter biden painting worth 450 000

anybody have a problem with that plan

now i know it would keep hunter busy for

a while but that's part of the benefit

of the plan

keep them away from the rest of people

right

yeah

one hunter by painting to every person

who

got separated at the border

apparently somebody else had that idea

before i did but i don't know who it was

uh here's my idea for reparations

and first i'll give you uh

raul davis's idea so on twitter raul

davis who who you should follow

so look for raul davis ceo branding

expert he'll pop right up

and he said he tweeted the government

should create an nft that's a little

digital piece of art

uh an nft reparations fund

half proceeds to go to black reparations

get together the top white liberal

actors artists and business leaders

they should all be willing to provide

nft artwork for the government program

it's not a bad idea

is it all the people who want

reparations the famous ones they could

create a little piece of art

and just sell it

and then the proceeds

go to some kind of reparations fund but

i'm gonna i'm gonna take it

one step further are you ready to have

your mind blown

ready

i'm gonna blow your mind

we are and i think you'd agree and

facebook certainly agrees transitioning

as a

species

from a sort of organic species into a

better verse

digital virtual reality species true or

false do you accept the premise might be

20 years might be 30 years but do you

expect do you accept the premise that

we're guaranteed to be spending a lot of

time in the multiverse

maybe not your generation but the one

after

i'm going to say yes

stay with me here don't don't argue the

assumptions yet

now if we believe that uh

black americans were highly

disadvantaged in the real world because

of slavery and then systemic racism that

grows from that

what would be the one time in human

history we could fix that

see where i'm going

you could you could make the reparations

in the metaverse

you could give every black american

who uh would be let's say the recipient

of reparations if we were to do

reparations you could give them digital

uh assets

that would have actual monetary value

when they entered the metaverse

so every black american who signs up for

the metaverse whether it's

zuckerberg's version or another one

gets automatic a digital payment and

they start with an advantage

what do you think

here's here's another way to do it

now would this be fair no of course not

it wouldn't be fair

but

i i'd have a conversation about it i

mean i'd at least talk about it

here's another version

give every uh black american in the form

of reparations uh some when

tokens

now the when is my own and my

uh x startups

token the startup is gone but the

uh the token remains because they live

forever on the blockchain you could give

everybody a bunch of when tokens or some

other crypto but i'll just pick my own

and then just say to people hey

if uh

if you'd like reparations to be a thing

buy some when for yourself

because if you buy one for yourself just

as a speculation or investment i

wouldn't call it an investment

speculation if you buy it for yourself

you can make some money if it goes up

you can lose some money if it goes down

but if it goes up

and just the fact that you bought it

should make the when tokens that the

black owners of it have go up in value

so you could simply make yourself rich

and also

black americans who got reparations rich

simply by investing in it

now again it's not really an investment

because crypto i don't consider an

investment

what about it

who loses

nobody right nobody loses because

there's a whole bunch of when tokens you

could just give a bunch away and say all

right everybody gets one when

and then say if you want people to have

reparations buy some when you'll make

money too because yours might go up at

the same time

not guaranteed

but if it does

suddenly black americans have a nice

little uh

little pot of crypto that they can turn

into real cash

so those are my ideas and raul raul's

ideas as well and i don't know that

these are good ideas i like to put out

the bad idea version and then maybe that

makes somebody think well that's a bad

idea but if you change this part it

might work

that's usually the

philosophy with which i do this all

right

that is all i have to do

to talk about today

and i will talk to you