Episode 986 Scott Adams - Was Live and Sipping
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Content: Howard Kurtz notes polls never move, regardless of events Frank Bruni (NYT) doesn't care if Biden is mentally declining Did Oliver Darcy admit CNN mandates uniform host opinions? Phil Kerpen notes that it's still mostly the elderly at risk and dying Is Stacy Abrams a Mike Bloomberg cutout to run America? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
As the shades go down, you and I get to enjoy this sacred time in the morning. And what I say is sacred? Oh, I mean sacred. Yes, I do. Because we get to enjoy the simultaneous sip. I almost feel sorry for the people who aren't here. They do not get to enjoy the simultaneous sip. And it's so sad beca…
View segment →rder to enjoy it. How much do they need? Well, all they need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tankard, chalice, or a titanic empty yogurt flask — a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thin…
View segment →the simultaneous sip. And now go. Is this my imagination or are my zinc levels rising right now? It feels like it. So we've been talking about hydroxychloroquine and the president taking it. And I've mentioned a number of times that the studies that show it being used without zinc may be as if the…
View segment →ne. But again, I will bookend this with unreliable, unreliable. Everything here about therapeutics, vaccines, vitamins, minerals — you just assume every bit of it is unreliable because it is. None of it is reliable. But keep an eye on zinc. I'm going to say that that has caught my attention. All ri…
View segment →e from the fact that he strategically managed his career better than I know better than everybody. Has anybody ever done it better than that? Because if you look at other stuff like Facebook or somebody starts a social media platform, quite often there's a big piece of luck involved. Or somebody was…
View segment →ion. So now Joe Rogan is going from an advertising model on wherever he is to Spotify. And I don't know exactly how that's going to be handled. I guess if you're a member or maybe if you're not, you can watch it there. But whatever the deal is, I think he's just being paid directly by Spotify. So h…
View segment →s him. I don't think there are a lot of people in the world who do that, try to do that, or even can do that. Naval Ravikant, you'd be another example. I would always trust Naval to look at the whole field, look at the data, and then make a decision that common sense and reason and wisdom and data…
View segment →'s wait for the end part. So the first part is just a setup. "Roger Stone has been treated very unfairly. How about that jury? 4-0-1. Does anybody think that was fair? Disgraceful. Stay tuned for Fox News." And guys, and then he says, "And guys like low ratings psycho Joe Scarborough are allowed to…
View segment →ople's opinion of Joe Scarborough. So the fact that he would be so ballsy to throw in the suggestion that Scarborough murdered a young woman in his office. So yeah, I don't know how you could take it too seriously. But somebody will. Somebody's going to believe that really happened. All right. So h…
View segment →p. It's not much of a guess actually. It was another study. A team of scientists in Hong Kong. They did some tests with hamsters or something and they determined that wearing masks is 75 percent effective. It reduces droplets by 75 percent. Doesn't it seem to you that with all the masks people are…
View segment →he fail to cut some regulations because he had morally bottomed out? I don't remember that story. I think he just cut regulations really quickly. Did we not get ventilators on time because the president had morally bottomed out? I don't remember that story. I feel like we got ventilators and more t…
View segment →Biden. And that's an example of Trump's low moral standards. In the same article, the very first sentence, the author of the article, Frank Bruni, questioned Joe Biden's mental ability. I'm not even making this up. I mean I'm reading it to you right here. So the statement is that anybody who had qu…
View segment →d put Jared on the list as being a superstar. I don't know. I've got a feeling that you could pick apart any administration and you could find a number of political hires. Aren't they always political hires? It's sort of built into the process. I don't know that Trump is doing any better or worse in…
View segment →generation four nuclear and smarter technology. So maybe we're not so far apart at all. And maybe the golden age starts now. I'll talk to you tonight.
View segment →As the shades go down, you and I get to enjoy this sacred time in the morning. And what I say is sacred? Oh, I mean sacred. Yes, I do. Because we get to enjoy the simultaneous sip. I almost feel sorry for the people who aren't here. They do not get to enjoy the simultaneous sip. And it's so sad because there's so little that they need in order to enjoy it.
How much do they need? Well, all they need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tankard, chalice, or a titanic empty yogurt flask — a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the damn pandemic. It's called the simultaneous sip. And now go.
Is this my imagination or are my zinc levels rising right now? It feels like it.
So we've been talking about hydroxychloroquine and the president taking it. And I've mentioned a number of times that the studies that show it being used without zinc may be as if they're using it as if it matters, too. But if you test it without the zinc, you're testing it without the active part. So of course that doesn't work.
But I'm starting to see some indications — unreliably, I'll put that unreliable part in front and I'll put it on the back as well, unreliably — that it might be the zinc that's the only part that matters. So it might be that hydroxychloroquine was always just a fake-out. It was only the fact that it was paired with the zinc. It might be just the zinc.
So I'm seeing some people talking about that online. But again, I will bookend this with unreliable, unreliable. Everything here about therapeutics, vaccines, vitamins, minerals — you just assume every bit of it is unreliable because it is. None of it is reliable. But keep an eye on zinc. I'm going to say that that has caught my attention.
All right. This Joe Rogan move to Spotify. I'm trying to decide how big a deal this is. Now obviously it's a real big deal for him. I'm delighted that he made that work.
Joe Rogan I often talk about as one of my examples of a talent stack done right. If you were to look at each of Joe Rogan's individual skills, you would say to yourself, "Oh, that one's good. That one's really good. You know, that was pretty great. You know, that one's good. That was great." But you wouldn't find that one specific thing that he does better than all the people in the world.
What you would find instead is about 25 things that he does better than just about everybody. If you could do 25 things better than just about everybody, you get to be Joe Rogan and, you know, probably have a hundred million dollar payday. So when I say he does 20 things, 25 things well, I'm talking about everything from — and to be honest, you have to manage your look if you're on a video thing. He does that well. He's got a great look. You know, that works for what he does.
He's got a whole bunch of skills. He can talk about a whole bunch of topics. I mean, I don't know how many skills he put together, but it's probably something like 25 different sub-skills that he stacked together just over time. You could just see him building up the power level over time.
But here's what really impresses me about it, aside from the fact that he strategically managed his career better than I know better than everybody. Has anybody ever done it better than that? Because if you look at other stuff like Facebook or somebody starts a social media platform, quite often there's a big piece of luck involved. Or somebody was going to make a Facebook, the Facebook, and Zuckerberg was there.
But if you look at Joe Rogan's career, I mean he just carved that out of a rock. That just wasn't there. It wasn't going to happen on its own. I think social media platforms probably were going to happen. Somebody was going to make one and one of them would be the bigger ones. But the Joe Rogan Experience, that just didn't have to happen. He just carved that out of nothing. So that's just more impressive to me.
So here's the interesting part that I'm tracking. I have a theory that one of the biggest forces affecting civilization is known but underappreciated, and that is that our attention spans are shrinking. And our attention spans are shrinking for the obvious reasons, right? Our digital devices give us a little quick hits of dopamine to the point where I actually timed — and I told you this before — I timed how long it takes me to turn on my regular legacy television and wait for the prompts to come on and work through them and find a show. And it takes about 18 seconds, which I find unbearable.
Eighteen seconds of just looking for something to do while you're sitting there is way longer than I'm willing to wait. Because in 18 seconds I could have five to ten dopamine hits from Twitter. Or I could go to Locals and get five dopamine hits and fit it in 18 seconds. So I would say that normal legacy stuff is no longer competitive because our attention spans have shrunk below the baseline that they can get my regular television on a regular TV. It just isn't that fast. I don't know how they're going to make that fast enough.
But I would say more generally the advertising model is going to decline quite a bit. It won't disappear. But the problem is that I think advertisers are going to notice it didn't make much difference. But they're not getting as much benefit from advertising as they hoped, except for the kind of advertisement where you're finding out about something existing, which always works. Yes, if you don't know something exists, you're not going to buy it. But among the generic stuff, advertising doesn't seem to make much difference.
And so there's that. But I think the attention span part is the other. So I think things are going to move towards subscription services. And then here's the big prediction: digital warlords. So I'm going to make up that term and see if it sticks. Digital warlords. So a digital warlord would be not somebody who's interested in war. I'm just using it as a colorful term. But rather somebody who has a community that is defined usually by a subscription.
So now Joe Rogan is going from an advertising model on wherever he is to Spotify. And I don't know exactly how that's going to be handled. I guess if you're a member or maybe if you're not, you can watch it there. But whatever the deal is, I think he's just being paid directly by Spotify. So he'll be leaving the advertising model behind.
By going to Locals, I have a subscription model that I'm pursuing. And what happens in both cases is you end up walling off the people who care from the people who are just trolls, which is a gigantic breakthrough. If you're a creator, having any kind of environment where the people who want to be there are there and the people who are just trolls aren't there, it's sort of like heaven.
So I would not be surprised to see more sort of digital tribes, if you will. Tribes of preference. People say, "Yeah, I'd like to be behind that big wall, pay a few bucks a month, and be part of that thing." So I've got a feeling that depending on who the personalities are and what the purpose of forming these little digital warlord fiefdoms — you know, they don't have any power, they're just maybe influence — it could be a big deal.
Imagine if you would somebody putting together a subscription base that a million people in it. If you had a million subscribers to your online whatever, your content, you would have a lot of influence over stuff. Because you could make anything viral. All you'd have to do is say, "Here's my tweet," and your million subscribers would say, "I'll retweet that. I like this person."
So kind of look for that. That's my prediction, that you'll see community slash tribes behind subscription services where there's like entire power bases built up.
How much does that matter? Well, let me give you two examples. Today in the news we find out that the president has signed an executive order to look into the regulations that got temporarily canceled for the coronavirus to see how many of them should stay canceled. Now one of the ones on the list is allowing telemedicine across state lines.
Now if you've been with me since the beginning of the crisis, you know that that came from this. The idea to drop that restriction of telemedicine across state lines happened because I happen to be aware of that issue because my own startup, WhenHub, we dealt with that. So I just happen to be aware of it as a big deal.
So because of you, the audience, you allowed me to have higher visibility. So my visibility in the world is completely dependent on how many of you there are. You're the ones making this a thing. You're the ones who retweet me. You're the ones who basically give it all the energy. Because you gave it energy, that allowed me to have a channel, if you will, through Jonah Shumate, who was helping me connect the good ideas that were coming through me. I wasn't coming up with them all, but a lot of people were suggesting things to me.
And then Jonah, who had watched this Periscope and he's associated with — I'm sorry, he's working in the office of Representative Crawford. And so he was helping me get the good ideas to the people who are asking for good ideas. And in the middle of the beginning of a crisis, the people in charge are really looking for ideas like, "Okay, you have an idea? Anybody?" So it was a perfect time for good ideas to get to the right place.
And the telemedicine idea came from this experience through Jonah. Jonah sent it up to Mark Meadows. Mark Meadows had a good idea. It's on the list. And next thing you know, telemedicine is legal across state lines. Boom. How big a deal is that? Might be a gigantic deal. I mean that's the sort of deal that could change the entire cost structure of healthcare. That's how big a deal it is.
And I'm not sure it would have happened without the crisis and without noticing that there was this little crease of opportunity. And I aimed for the crease because I thought, okay, this is — you can see that there's this little crack in reality where if I can get through it, this telemedicine thing might be sticky, might be able to make this change. Otherwise regulations — and I don't know who else would be involved with it, but obviously it wasn't going to happen on its own. So somebody said New York is not allowing telemedicine. Nothing's easy, is it?
All right. So here's another example. Mark Snyder was pointing out recently, and I noticed as well, that Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, tweeted out an article about the Department of Energy started a new office of nuclear energy project. So the government is basically putting in $230 million to boost generation for the so-called new generation of nuclear development that will be resistant, pretty much impossible to melt down, at least melt down in the normal way that you think about it.
So they'll be designed that if they fail, they just stop working, which is the big problem with current nuclear designs. If they fail, they can release radiation and be bad for the neighborhood. But the new designs would be designed that if they stopped working, they just stopped working, which is a good thing. And they could be designed to be modular and smaller and have a whole bunch of cost and safety benefits that would be way beyond anything that we're looking at the current generations, which are actually also pretty safe. Generation 3, I think, is at zero problems, and that's the current generation anyway.
Here's this story about this. So Mark is speculating, and I think this is reasonable, that maybe Jack's exposure to generation four and the fact that he would retweet that article — probably, I don't know, probably is too strong — but you may have heard it from here because I know Jack watches this sometimes. So if you're watching, Jack, hi.
Now what's interesting about this is that not only is of course anything that Jack tweets is going to make news because it's Jack, but he would be associated more with — you would imagine in your own biased thinking, you would imagine that Jack would be associated the political left. Now I would say that's probably not. Let me see. I hate to categorize anybody else's opinion, so I want to be really careful the way I say it.
I would say that trying to pigeonhole Jack into a category would be a mistake and that he is in the category of free thinkers who I believe would just follow the data. So if the data is left, I think he'd go there. If the data happens to be compatible with something on the right, but the data is the data, I think he'd go there.
Now you can't say that about a lot of people. I would say that about Joe Rogan. I'll just throw him back in the conversation. I believe Joe Rogan is neither left nor right but would look at an argument and would judge it and go where the argument takes him. I don't think there are a lot of people in the world who do that, try to do that, or even can do that.
Naval Ravikant, you'd be another example. I would always trust Naval to look at the whole field, look at the data, and then make a decision that common sense and reason and wisdom and data taken together — I would never expect any of the guys I just mentioned to just go left or right because that's where the team is. They just don't do that.
Elon Musk is another one. Can you imagine Elon Musk just taking a team side? No, just not part of his makeup. He's going to follow the information, have his own opinion. So I would say that Jack's in that category of a fairly small group of people that you could depend on to just look at the argument.
And yeah, Matt Taibbi, there's another good example. Matt Taibbi, you could depend on to just look at the whole field.
So what's the big deal about this is that I've been trying to educate people watching this Periscope about generation four. Most of that comes from Mark Snyder's work. And maybe it made a difference. So maybe this is another example. We don't know. I mean Jack reads lots of stuff, so he may have known about this from others and just thought it was interesting. But there's a good chance that what we're doing here to educate all of you is having an effect, right?
So yeah, we can't — it's illegitimate to trace any one thing back to one source because it's a big world with lots of variables. But I like to think that we were productive at the very least, productive in getting the generation four message out. So thanks to Mark Snyder for changing the world. I like that little old saying, you know, the pessimist says, "Well, one person, one person can change the world? What can I do? Just one person. I can't change the world."
And then the smarter person says the only way the world has ever been changed is by one person. It's always that way. One person always changes the world because it starts somewhere. The things don't start with a thousand people. They always start with one. So if you want to be the pessimist, you can say that one person can't change the world. If you want to be the optimist, that just gave you two examples where it happened, maybe.
All right. Here's my favorite story of the day. This is from a tweet from Trump, I think this is today or yesterday. "Roger Stone has been treated very unfairly." So it's not the first part of the tweet that's funny. It's wait for the end part.
So the first part is just a setup. "Roger Stone has been treated very unfairly. How about that jury? 4-0-1. Does anybody think that was fair? Disgraceful. Stay tuned for Fox News." And guys, and then he says, "And guys like low ratings psycho Joe Scarborough are allowed to walk the streets. Open the cold case. A cold case."
So if you don't know what that story's about, Joe Scarborough and the alleged cold case. Jake Tapper tweeted the president's tweet and gave you some context. So Jake says, "Yet again the president uses the death of Lori Klausutis, 28 — I guess she died at age 28 — to attack Joe Scarborough. In 2001 she fainted, hitting her head. An autopsy revealed a heart condition. There's no cold case. It's a tragedy. He cruelly exploits it. Indecent."
Now I won't weigh in on the opinion if this is cruel exploitation or indecent because we're in the political season and it's hard to think of anything that isn't. Is there anything in this whole political race that isn't indecent or cruel? I mean Pelosi just called Trump morbidly obese yesterday, which surprisingly I saw a write-up that says he's actually only just a few pounds into the obese category because he's so tall he can handle it. He can handle the weight better than most people. So he's only barely into the "you should lose a good ten or twenty pounds would be good for him," I think according to his doctor. But he's not morbidly obese.
So it's a weird world. I think we're in a world in which people will say absolutely anything. So Don Jr. used the pedophile word against Joe Biden. And of course there's no evidence or even an allegation of that. But it's — and he didn't mean it seriously either. It was obvious he didn't mean it in the literal sense. But we're in that world where people will say absolutely anything about anybody.
But once you've learned that there's no limit on what ridiculous things you can claim, why would you stick with something that's only a little bit ridiculous, right? So this is one of the president's great skills. I talked about finding free money and picking it up. If you live in the world where the other side can say the Steele dossier might have been real, that's the world he lives in. Trump did not make the rules.
There was no point at which Trump said, "All right, let's agree on the rules. Do you think it's okay to make wildly ridiculous claims that are even involving illegalities and jail time terms and everything? Do you think that would be okay?" He never was in that conversation. It just became the standard.
If you're playing a game and someone else has said here are their rules and then you play with those rules as someone else established, are you indecent? Well, you'd be indecent if you made those rules, if you were the one who came up with it in the first place or the first one to act indecently. You'd have something to answer to, I think so. I think it would be fair to say that if you were the one who introduced the idea of going too far and making ridiculous legal allegations against people based on no evidence whatsoever, if you're the one who started it, yeah, I think you'd have some explaining to do.
But I don't think he started it. I think he simply said, "Well, what are the rules of the game? I'm going to play this game. Can somebody explain the rules? All right. All right. Wait, you're telling me I can say absolutely anything? I can just make stuff up? I can make an allegation that somebody murdered and raped and genocide, anything?" And the answer is yep, you can say absolutely anything in a political context apparently. There's just no restrictions whatsoever.
Not only that, but if you were to artificially limit yourself and the other side did not, you can't even win. So it's not only is he playing by the rules, he's playing by the only rules that can win. The hard rules, the ones where you can say anything. And so he is. So I just look at this as funny.
Because when Trump accuses Joe Scarborough of this, and I should say as clearly as possible, I would imagine — I wasn't there, but I would imagine that Jake's framing of this is accurate, meaning that it probably is true that there's nothing that would suggest a crime even happened, much less that anybody in particular was associated with it. So I think it's true that there's literally nothing there.
But the fact that the president calls it a cold case, you have to know that's tongue in cheek, right? It's tongue in cheek because A, he knows people will believe it. B, it might make a difference. I mean in terms of the back and forth of how people feel about things, it might change people's opinion of Joe Scarborough. So the fact that he would be so ballsy to throw in the suggestion that Scarborough murdered a young woman in his office. So yeah, I don't know how you could take it too seriously. But somebody will. Somebody's going to believe that really happened.
All right. So here's an interesting story. So Dr. Karol Sikora — it's a man's name, Karol Sikora. He's an oncologist and former chief of the World Health Organization's cancer program. So he's looking at the data from around the world where some of the lockdowns have ended. And he is puzzled. He is puzzled because if you look at where the lockdowns ended and people have gone back to work, the death rate is not spiking. And apparently according to him, he says it's as though something has changed, meaning there's something that's keeping the virus from raging. He says so something has changed and none of us can explain why.
Do you remember when Trump made that statement? He's been continually mocked for that. We might say the virus will just go away. And people said that doesn't happen. Viruses don't just go away. And then there was some other famous virologist who said the same thing. He said sometimes these things just go away. And here's the funny thing. You don't know why. So even the top experts say they don't know why any virus goes away. They know it does.
Now somebody's saying herd immunity. But apparently the experts do not say that. Apparently viruses go away without much herd immunity. So if that's not the primary thing, there's always some, but apparently that's not the explanation. It's part of the story, but I guess we don't know why some viruses just go away.
If I had to speculate, I will speculate. I'm going to speculate that some people are more likely to get any particular virus. And there could be — you reach herd immunity at like — this is just speculation with no background whatsoever. It could be that for some kinds of viruses you reach an effective herd immunity that may be 30 percent infected. Now if everybody could get every virus, 30 percent wouldn't stop anything. But if it turns out that viruses can affect some people and sort of not affect others, maybe 30 percent is enough.
So maybe there's some mystery like that. That's just speculation. Don't take that seriously. But I love the fact that after everything we've learned and studied and all the experts and everything that we could do, the one thing that everybody agrees should make the death rate go up — 100 percent of experts agree if you're loosening the restrictions on travel and everything, you should make the death rate go up. But maybe it's not. What if it doesn't?
So this is what I've been telling you for the last day or two. In two weeks, if everything's loosened up and in two weeks the death rate either declines a little bit or stays flat, it's over. We're back to work. Because you're not going to be able to keep anybody home if after a few weeks of loosening up there's no change in the data in terms of worsening. If it's not worsening two weeks from now, I think things are going to open up.
Now when I say things are going to open up, I don't think large events are going to happen right away. But things like school, for example, and go to work and open your restaurant but do things smart. I think all that's going to come together pretty quickly if this holds, which we don't know why, but the rates are not going up as much as expected.
Here's my best guess about why the rates are not going up. It's not much of a guess actually. It was another study. A team of scientists in Hong Kong. They did some tests with hamsters or something and they determined that wearing masks is 75 percent effective. It reduces droplets by 75 percent.
Doesn't it seem to you that with all the masks people are wearing and the attention they're giving to social distancing that — and also learning what the worst things are. We've learned now that if you're around somebody who's singing or talking loudly for a long time, you're going to get it. You now have an excuse not to be around loud talkers. If you've got a loud talker in your life, you know that person who just talks too loudly all the time. Apparently they're the spreaders.
If you had it, you could probably live with somebody who was a soft talker and didn't talk much. I'll bet you Christina could have the coronavirus tomorrow, but because she doesn't talk much and she's a soft talker, there wouldn't be much coming out of her mouth. But apparently the loud talkers and the choir singing. So if there's singing involved, apparently there's more volume and you could be a super spreader just by being a loud talker.
So just knowing that, knowing that if you stay out of those specific environments — probably nobody caught the coronavirus at the beach this weekend. Duh. Don't you think? Nobody got it at the beach. I'll bet there was something close to zero transmission of all the people who went to the beach all weekend.
So now that we know stuff like that, and of course every fact that I give you is subject to being changed tomorrow, learning new things. But don't you think that between masks being 75 percent effective and that we've all learned what to do and what not to do for a while, I wouldn't be surprised if we could go back to work and keep infections dropping. All that we can.
So I've got a feeling you're going to see nonstop good news for the next few weeks.
I'm watching the Susan Rice story. Apparently we've got new documents or something. And it turns out that Comey was selling the idea of General Flynn being maybe suspiciously tied to Russia based on the fact that they had more communication than Comey expected that they would. Keeping in mind that these are people who have to work together in a few months because that's the job that Flynn has and that's the job that Kislyak has. They were doing the most normal thing in the world, which is getting ready for the new administration. And these are the very people who would be talking.
Now is that a good reason to suspect somebody being a spy? Because let me ask you this. If it's your job to talk to somebody in another organization or country and you talk to them a lot, would that be an example of doing your job well? Would it be an example of not doing your job? Or would it be an example of being a Russian asset? I'm pretty sure that if you talk a little bit more than normal to the person who it's your job to talk to, and wouldn't it be if you had more communication, not less? That's more of an indication of doing a good job.
Do you remember I told you about the new CEO move when Pence and Trump were first elected but not yet sworn in? There was a few months there and Trump already started to bring jobs back. He wasn't even on the job. It was the new CEO move where he went to I guess Ford and Carrier, tried to talk them into keeping jobs. I don't know how successful it was, but it left the impression that Trump and Pence were jobs, jobs, jobs. We're going to give you jobs even before we're on the job. I'm not even going to take a paycheck and I'm going to be so fast on this job stuff. I'm all over it with the jobs.
So if you watch Flynn doing exactly the same thing that I praised at the time as somebody doing the job before the job even starts. Last night in Periscope somebody was asking me about how to do a job interview. I didn't give you this advice but it's great advice. One way to get a job is to just do it without getting paid. If you're working at your corporate job and you're doing your regular job but the job you want is some other job, a better job, just start doing it. Do your own job on weekends, nights, spare time, whatever, and just start doing the other job. Because you're going to be the obvious person to be promoted into it if you're already doing it at least a little bit.
So I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who start their job before they start their job. If you ask me who's the superstar in the administration, the one who waited for inauguration day or the one who started hard on day one on the top priority? Russia's kind of a top priority, right? It's at the top three probably for that kind of job. And so if the guy hit the ground running, worked extra hard before he was even getting a paycheck, let's send him to jail for that. That's what happened. He was a guy who did extra work before he got his paycheck on exactly the right priority. And they almost sent him to jail for it. Unbelievable.
Anyway, so I don't know if we'll ever have enough of a smoking gun that Obama or Susan Rice or anybody we're going to have to answer to it. I don't think so. I think it will end in murkiness where it is and then everybody will just retreat to their side.
So Howard Kurtz, who talks about media on Fox News and elsewhere, he was talking about the fact that the polls don't move no matter what happens in the real world. That no matter what Biden does, no matter what Trump does, the polls come out and they're just bouncing around in the same little narrow level. It's as if our preferences for voting are completely now disconnected from the candidates. And he makes a good case because literally no matter what happens, the poll numbers don't change.
And there's some stuff happening. Here's one example that Howard Kurtz gives in his article about something that you would expect to change the polling but it didn't. And it says he talked about Trump proudly announcing that he's taking hydroxychloroquine against the advice of most medical experts. And that you know he said if that doesn't turn public opinion then Trump must be invulnerable.
Now does that sentence capture what really happened? Would you say that a good description of events is that the president proudly announced that he's taking hydroxychloroquine against the advice of most medical experts? Number one, the word "proudly" is your tip-off from mind reading. Did the president say it proudly? Did you pick up proudly? Did you detect that? Because I didn't. I detected matter-of-factness. I detected him talking in terms of risk management. Certainly there was a political dimension. But did you see proudly? See, that's one of those key words that just says ah, whatever follows in the rest of this sentence can be safely ignored.
All right. Because if you start out with a mind-reading word, it's like all right, I've now connected to his mind. Okay, yeah, I could see some pride in there about the hydroxychloroquine. Okay, let us go on. Oh no, you don't need to go on. Once somebody admits they're engaged in mind reading, stop reading. There's nothing that follows the word proudly that could possibly help you.
But here's the rest of the sentence. He's proudly using it against the advice of most medical experts. Now is that a true statement? Yes, that is a true statement. It is against the advice of most medical experts. It is not against the advice of the president's own doctor. The president's own doctor said yeah, if you want it, risk management makes sense, go ahead. We're monitoring you. So it's not like a regular person.
Don't you think it was important to mention that the president's own doctor was okay with it? Do you think it would be important to notice how many people on the front line who are medical doctors are using it? Do you think it would be important to note that something like a quarter of all doctors would and that it's an off-label use? So any off-label use is going to be — 75 percent of doctors think it's a bad idea. That's an exaggeration. But the point is if it's an off-label use, you're not going to get everybody to agree. What would be the other example of an off-label use where all the doctors are on the same page? Probably not a lot of them. There might be a few.
So here's my — and he also talks about Joe Biden having a complicated life. Oh well, this is something else. So there's another story on CNN I think it was talking about Tara Reade, the accuser of Joe Biden. And it was saying how she has a complicated life and there are conflicting accounts that muddle the efforts to understand Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden.
In other words, CNN hired two women to research and write an article. The fact that they're both women is important to the story because Biden was accused by a woman. And the two women go through Tara Reade's background trying to paint a picture that maybe she's not the most reliable witness. So it's basically just a takedown of a witness. Real nice.
Because what about that credibility? By the way, the whole "all women should be believed but we believe Joe Biden this time," blah blah. I feel like the way we should be talking about that is credibility, which is different than main true. Something can be credibly reported and then you find that it's not true. But it was still credible at the time. And I think that with these accusations you should say that the accuser is credible if the accuser is credible. Tara Reade I think is credible.
And then but then you should also be able to say that if the accused has a pretty good defense, you can say that's credible too. There's nothing wrong with saying that both the accuser and the accused have credible stories. Only one of them is true at most. They could both not be true, but only one of them is true at most. But they could both be credible. And I think you just leave it there. You can be credible, turned out you're wrong, but you could still be credible.
All right. So here's my larger point. It seems to me that Howard Kurtz and most of the world is looking at it as still a contest between two candidates. But I think it's ceased being a contest between two candidates some time ago. Instead it became a contest between the news media versus the other news media.
And so I would propose this. The reason that no matter what the candidates do doesn't move the polling — the way Howard Kurtz described that is that people have just gone onto their team and it doesn't matter what their team does wrong. They're just going to be on their team. So there's lots of evidence for that. So I'd say that the Howard Kurtz interpretation is a credible one, meaning that it does look like it's just team play in politics. And we are ignoring the flaws of our preferred candidate to emphasize the flaws of the other ones. And that's all that's happening. Maybe. Maybe that's all that's happening.
I would like to give this a different spin. The reason that things don't move no matter what the candidates do is that the other side never hears it. It doesn't matter what Joe Biden does if his team isn't aware of it, right? They just don't see the same reporting as the other side.
So I would argue that we're no longer in a system in which you have something like democracy and something like the candidates making their best case and then the public listening to the candidates and then the public making a decision based on the candidates. That's probably what it used to be. But today this is absolutely nothing but a massive brainwashing operation. And you've got two massive brainwashing entities competing.
So you've got the left mainstream media, CNN, MSNBC, who are doing this massive brainwashing operation. If they succeed, it literally doesn't matter who the candidate is. Do I need to prove that it doesn't matter who the candidate is? Because the candidate is Joe Biden. Do I need any more evidence that it doesn't matter who the candidate is? That's pretty conclusive, isn't it? Do you need to — there's no questions left. If Joe Biden as the candidate is good enough, then it's not about the candidate.
We are not in a world where the candidate matters. Think about that. We drifted into a world where the actual quality of the candidate is not a variable because it's not. You could replace either candidate with anybody and their poll numbers would be identical. Anybody.
Now you've got the two most different weird candidates in the world. I mean we've never seen anything like this. There's nothing like Trump. We've never seen anything like that. But there's also nothing like Biden. Somebody decomposing in their own basement on the edge of death who's leading in the polls to be the next president of the United States. There's no way this has to do with the candidates anymore.
We've completely left that world. It is just the persuasive power of the right entities and the persuasive power of the left-leaning entities. And that's the battle. The actual candidate, you can substitute them and it wouldn't matter. Now of course because we only talk about the candidates and their opinions and their personalities and stuff, it seems the opposite. But that's the magic trick.
To bolster my speculation, here's an example. So Frank Bruni writing for the New York Times says this. And look out. This is to my point. So Frank Bruni says, "Please tell me why I should care whether Joe Biden is declining mentally when President Trump bottomed him out morally long ago." He goes, "I'm serious. I'd rather drink milk past its expiration date than arsenic."
So here's a Biden supporter who's saying directly and in public that he's supporting somebody with declining mental ability and that he's happy about it. Meaning that he prefers it over the alternative. Because here's the alternative: that Donald Trump bottomed him out morally long ago.
Now suppose that was true. What if that was true? Let's say it was true that his interpretation that Trump bottomed out morally long ago. Wouldn't that indicate that we would see the impact of that morally bottoming out by now? In other words, would your taxes be higher because Trump allegedly bottomed out morally a long time ago? Remember he's saying that what happened a long time ago. So if there are impacts from all this morally bottoming out, we'd be seeing them now.
Did Trump not close the airport on time from China because he was morally challenged? No, I think he got that right. Did Trump not cut the regulations that were limiting us during the crisis? Did he fail to cut some regulations because he had morally bottomed out? I don't remember that story. I think he just cut regulations really quickly.
Did we not get ventilators on time because the president had morally bottomed out? I don't remember that story. I feel like we got ventilators and more than we needed. And just go down the line. You pick any topic: trade deal, taxes, you name it, the Supreme Court. Find me one example where the events of the world or the decisions of the president somehow would correspond to this horrible problem that he had morally bottomed out. What exactly was that? Can you give me an example of that?
Now I get it that you don't like his person and his character. I get it. We've heard you say that. But can you give me an example of how that affected me? Can I have a choice of somebody who — I can't see into his soul so I don't know if there's anything dark in his inner soul or in his mind. But I like low taxes. I like being tough with China. Give me an example of where things went wrong.
So the fact that Frank Bruni — I wish I could pronounce his name, so I apologize if I'm saying it wrong. The fact that he would say out loud that he would pick somebody in a declining mental state, in his own words declining mentally, and he says why should he care? Holy cow.
But he goes on. So as soon as more of this Frank Bruni stuff. Let's say that oh, and you're saying that Trump has bottomed out morally. And here's an example. So here's how you know that's a big problem that Trump bottomed out morally. So listen to this. His example is that Trump said recently that Biden has absolutely no idea what's happening. Trump also said he doesn't know he's alive. So Trump is questioning the mental ability of Joe Biden. And that's an example of Trump's low moral standards.
In the same article, the very first sentence, the author of the article, Frank Bruni, questioned Joe Biden's mental ability. I'm not even making this up. I mean I'm reading it to you right here. So the statement is that anybody who had questioned Joe Biden's mental acuity is being morally low. And the author does that in his first sentence, questions Joe Biden's mental acuity in the first sentence. And that's his best example of what's wrong with Trump is the thing he did in his first sentence.
Now if you're telling me that these people have a great awareness of their own actions, I would say maybe not. I'm being told in the comments that the pronunciation is Bruni. I hope that's right.
And then Frank Bruni goes on to talk about Biden and he says, "Besides, the precise agility of his mind has nothing to do with the fundamental decency of his values. At the end of the day" — and by the way, anybody who says "at the end of the day," they should no longer be writers. You should have to change professions if you ever use this sentence in public writing. "At the end of the day." That's your writer's tip of the day. The most hacked writing in the world uses the phrase "at the end of the day." I mean really, you couldn't find another way to express that?
All right. At the end of the day, Biden can be trusted to do what Trump didn't and won't, meaning to stock his administration with qualified professionals. Now is that true? Do you think that Trump has not stocked his administration with qualified professionals? I would say he's got — I would say Steve Mnuchin is a superstar. I would say that all of the departments seem to be doing their jobs for the most part. I've got some questions about the FDA. I would say that Pompeo is great. I would say that I think you could name a whole bunch of people who were actually really, really good, couldn't you?
I would put Jared on the list as being a superstar. I don't know. I've got a feeling that you could pick apart any administration and you could find a number of political hires. Aren't they always political hires? It's sort of built into the process. I don't know that Trump is doing any better or worse in terms of staffing. That's just an opinion.
Well, what would be your — yeah, well, Perdue. Okay. So there. So I'm not going to argue that the Trump administration had all superstars. But is it really different? I mean could you really — do you think you could objectively look at the people that Trump has hired and cycled through and fired and rehired? Do you think that you could really put any administration up against any other and that one would look like the incompetently staffed one? I feel like no. I feel like they would all look like — here's my guess. I feel like every administration is probably 70 percent effective people and maybe 30 percent political. You know, I had to return a favor. But that's also how you get elected. If you haven't taken some political favors, you probably didn't get elected.
So we sort of also — we all just sort of wince and say yeah, I hate that part, but they all do it. It's how they got elected. It's fairly transparent. When a big donor becomes a cabinet head. Yeah, Peter Navarro, I'd say he's a star. Make a good example.
So I don't know that this claim holds up. It would be interesting if there was any — I don't know if there's any way to actually prove it. But it all comes down to a very subjective statement that some group of people are less talented than others. We don't know that. That's completely unknowable if you're not there. You don't really know.
So this really sums it up. All right. So my hypothesis is the candidates have stopped mattering and it's just a brainwash competition between the left media and the right media. And I will put a bow on that point by talking about Oliver Darcy. He's with CNN.
So Oliver Darcy is tweeting about the fact that the Fox News hosts had a variety of opinion on the president taking hydroxychloroquine, which we know to be true. So it's a true fact that the Fox News hosts have talked about it differently. Ambiguously they've talked about it differently. But they've also had experts on who also talked about it differently.
So Darcy writes, "Fox can't get its story straight." What? Can't get its story straight? What's that mean? Did I just describe a network that can't get its story straight? What does that mean? Should there be one story? Why can't Neil Cavuto have a different opinion than Laura Ingraham? Is that not allowed? Why couldn't Tucker have a different opinion than somebody on The Five? If he does, I don't know if he does. Why can't they do that?
And the fact that a CNN person would start with the very first sentence "Fox can't get its story straight," doesn't that indicate that if you work at CNN — wait for it. Yes, somebody's already ahead of me. Wait for it. Isn't he telling us fairly directly that at CNN they have to get their story straight? What does that mean? Yeah, what does it mean to get your story straight? Well, the context he's offering is that everybody says the same thing.
I believe he's admitting in public that Fox has a diversity of opinions and CNN does not present a diversity of opinions, apparently by choice. He's saying it directly. If you use the phrase "get your stories straight" as a criticism of the competing network, how do you not interpret that as CNN works hard to get their story straight? And again, since the story is opinion — you know, whether you should or should not say something or do something with hydroxychloroquine — it's really an opinion story given that the experts have different opinions. And we know that. Should you get your opinions straight?
I think he just admitted that they're not even in the business of news. And that seems like a pretty direct admission. So that's fascinating.
All right. Let me see if there's anything else to talk about here. Phil Kerpen. And that's an interesting string of tweets. And he's talking about the fact that the elderly are still the main people dying. So even today on May 20th, we've known now for how many months have we known that age is the biggest risk factor? We've known that since, correct me, January? Have we known since January that this virus really attacks the elderly like super, super hard? We've known that, right?
How long have we been talking about the strategy of super protecting the elderly and then letting the younger people take more of a risk? We've been talking about that for months. And yet today the elderly, the very group that we've identified and everybody agrees — there's no conversation on this. Everyone agrees these are the most dangerous at-risk group. And we're not protecting them.
Now I have to think that people are doing a lot of stuff. There must be a lot of activity going on to try to protect them. But we're failing. Can you believe that? After three months of knowing exactly who's at risk exactly — I mean you could list unless a guy here's 85 years old, you're at risk. We know who's at risk at the highest risk. And we're still not protecting them. What's up with that?
Is there something about the nature of the virus that's just too hard? Maybe you can try as hard as you can and you just can't get it done. But today still, still they're dying at the rate they're dying. Do you know what the correct rate of death from coronavirus should be for anybody over 80? If you're over 80, what should be your death rate from coronavirus in the United States? Zero. Zero. That's what it should be.
If there's an 85-year-old who's having any contact with somebody who could have also had contact with the coronavirus, aren't we doing it wrong? Isn't there some way you can make sure that they don't have any contact with the virus? There's got to be a way to do that. Clearly we're not getting it done.
All right. So that's the bad news. But we don't like to end on bad news, do we? We do not.
So recapping the good news, here it is. You want some really good news? I'm going to give you some real direct, reliable good news. Yesterday I talked to the most successful real estate broker in my area. So it's a friend in the neighborhood who's probably the top real estate producer in my area. And as of last night I asked what's the real estate market because I thought to myself, oh, real estate is going to get killed, right? Don't you assume real estate is going to get killed? Goodbye, troll.
So I asked her what's happening with real estate sales. And guess what? Strong as ever. This week homes are being sold for higher than asking price. This week. So I've been in Northern California just for reference. Now in Northern California, you know where I am in the East Bay outside of San Francisco, where we're sort of Silicon Valley adjacent. So it's a lot of people who didn't lose their jobs because a lot of technology jobs, they just worked at home. So I'm in an unusual area in that we were unusually lightly affected.
But could you imagine that people are paying over the asking price for homes this week? This is mind-blowing, doesn't that tell you that the economy is going to come back faster? Of course it is. Yeah, interest rates are low, so that makes a big difference. Somebody says our beach condo is on fire in Florida, meaning lots of demand.
So here's what I expect. Look at the stock market. Did you think the stock market should be — I don't know what it's doing at the moment. Let me just take a peek at it so I know. The stock market's up sharply. Did you see that? The stock market up sharply and home prices selling above their asking prices. There's something happening here that's a big deal.
Now I've got to say I think there's something about the Trump administration that even people who don't like Trump still think he can goose the economy. I feel like even his haters in their secret moments would say to themselves, I hate everything about this president, but if I'm being honest privately, if I had to pick one person in the history of civilization to be the president during this exact situation — meaning that somebody needs to get the economy going — honestly I can't think of a better choice.
And I'm not just cheerleading for the president because I've also been vicious in my criticisms of the early crisis task forces, the reporting on them and a lot of stuff about that. So I've been vicious about his communication, his empathy, etc., early on. So I'm not just giving him a free pass here. But honestly he is exactly the right person for this next phase. Exactly.
And I say this all the time and I believe I'm the only person in civilization who holds this opinion. There's no such thing as a good president. That's my opinion. There's no such thing as a good president. There is only a lucky coincidence between the problems and the situations of the time and the right personality with the right skill set. You can have exactly the right president for exactly the right problem. And we have that right now.
We did not have exactly the right president for exactly the right problem when it was empathy and sort of caring for the psychology of the country and saying things that made you feel safe about the medical situation and talking about them in the most clinical ways as opposed to getting people all worked up about some drug that hasn't passed enough tests. So Trump was not the right fit for that. But man, is he the right fit for this next part? Don't you see it? This is just me being crazy? Because I feel like you couldn't pick a better person for this.
By the way, I just saw Bloomberg's name go by in the comments. I only recently learned that Stacey Abrams is working for some organization that's funded by Bloomberg. So is Stacey Abrams Mike Bloomberg's play to run the country? Because a lot of politicians have at least one billionaire that's sort of their friend, if you know what I mean. So is Stacey Abrams just a Mike Bloomberg cutout? And he is actually still running for president but he's going to do it by trying to get Stacey Abrams as the vice president and then Biden would be sort of less important. That's what it looks like, right? It looks like a Mike Bloomberg play to run the country. That's my take on it anyway.
I think the economy is going to do great in 2021 and beyond. And the golden age is coming. We're going to have our generation four nuclear energy. You've got AOC saying that the Green New Deal doesn't even have a price tag. Rather it's a set of shared values. Do you know what value I share with AOC? Same ones you do, turns out. Yeah, I would like cheap, clean energy with no risk of the planet overheating. I don't know how big the risk is, but I'd like that to be zero. And I'd like to do it with generation four nuclear and smarter technology. So maybe we're not so far apart at all. And maybe the golden age starts now.
I'll talk to you tonight.
yes as the shades go down you and I get to enjoy this sacred time in the morning and what I say is sacred Oh I mean sacred yes I do because we get to enjoy the simultaneous that I almost feel sorry for the people who aren't here they do not get to enjoy the simultaneous it and it's so sad because there's so little that they need in order to enjoy it how much do they need well all they need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard chelators Titanic empty Joker flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee enjoyed me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine here the day the thing that makes everything better including the damn pandemic it's called the simultaneous epitaph is now go this is my imagination or my zinc levels rising right now feels like it so here's a little insight so we've been talking about hydroxychloroquine and the president taking it and I've mentioned a number of times that the studies they show at being used without zinc maybe they as if they're mice it matters too but if you test it without the zinc you're testing it without the active part so of course that doesn't work but I'm starting to see some indications unreliably I'll put that unreliably part in front and I'll put it on the back as well unreliably that it might be the zinc that's the only part that matters so it might be the hydroxyl chloroquine was always just a fake-out it was only the fact that it was paired with the zinc it might be just the zinc so I'm seeing some people talking about that online but again I will bookend this with unreliable unreliable everything here about therapeutic vaccines vitamins minerals you just assume every bit of it is unreliable because it is none of it is reliable but keep an eye on zinc I'm going to say that that has caught my attention all right this Joe Rogan moved to Spotify I'm trying to decide how big a deal this is now obviously it's a real big deal for him I'm delighted that he he made that work Joe Rogan I often talk about as one of my examples of a talent stack done right if you were to look at each of Joe Rogan's individual skills you would say to yourself oh that one's that was really good you know that was pretty great you know then that one's good that was great but you wouldn't find that one specific thing that he does better than all the people in the world well you'd find instead is about 25 things that he does better than just about everybody if you could do 25 things better than just about everybody you get to be Joe Rogan and you know probably have a hundred billion dollar payday so what I say he does 20 things 25 things well I'm talking about everything from and to be honest you have to manage your look if you're on a video thing he does that well he's got a great look you know that works for what he does he's got a whole bunch of skills he can talk about he's you know he's he's funny he's good on video he does stand-up he knows how to work you know in an interview obviously knows how to deal with people it was about a whole bunch of topics I mean I don't know how many skills he put together but it's probably something like 25 different sub skills that he stacked together just over time you could just see him building up the you know the power level over time but here's what here's what really impresses me about it aside from the fact that he strategically managed his career better than I know better than everybody you know has anybody ever done it better than that because you know if you look at other stuff like you know Facebook or you know somebody starts a social media platform quite often there's a big piece of luck involved or you know somebody was gonna make a Facebook the Facebook and you know Zuckerberg was there but if you look at Joe Rogan's career I mean he just carved that out of a rock you know that just wasn't there it wasn't gonna happen on its own you know I think social media platforms probably were gonna happen you know somebody was gonna make one and one of them would be the better ones and but the you know the Joe Rogan experience that just didn't have to happen he just carved that out of nothing so that's just more impressive to me so here's the interesting part that I'm tracking I have a theory that one of the biggest forces affecting the civilization is known but underappreciated and that is that our attention spans are shrinking and our attention spans are shrinking for the obvious reasons right our digital our digital devices give us a little quick hits of dopamine to the point where I actually timed and I told you this before I timed how long it takes me to turn on my regular legacy television and wait for the prompts to come on and work through them and find a show and it takes about 18 seconds which I find unbearable 18 seconds of just looking for something to do while you're sitting there is way longer than I'm willing to wait because in 18 seconds I could have 5 to 10 dopamine hits from Twitter or I could go to locals and get you know five dopamine hits and fit in 18 seconds so I would say that normal legacy stuff is no longer competitive because our attention spans have shrunk below the the baseline that they can get my regular television on a regular TV in my just isn't that fast I don't know how they're gonna make that fast enough but I would say more generally the advertising model is going to decline quite a bit it won't disappear but the problem is that I think advertiser is going to notice it didn't make much difference but they're not getting as much benefit from advertising as they hoped except for the kind of advertisement where you're finding out about something existing which always works yes if you don't know something exists you're not going to buy it but among the generic stuff advertising doesn't seem to make much difference and so there's that but I think the attention span part is the other so I think things are going to move towards subscription services and then here's the big prediction digital warlords so I'm going to make up that term and see if it sticks digital warlords so a digital warlord would be now somebody who's interested in war that I'm just using it as a colorful term but rather somebody who has a community that is defined usually by a subscription so now Joe Rogan is going from an advertising model on wherever he is to Spotify and I don't know exactly how that's going to be handled I guess if you're a member or maybe if you're not you can watch it there but whatever the deal is I think he's just being paid directly by Spotify so he'll be leaving I think I think he's leaving the advertising model behind I - by going to locals have a subscription model that I'm pursuing and what happens in both cases is you end up walling off the people who care from the people who are just trolls which is a gigantic breakthrough if you're if you're creator having any kind of environment where the people who want to be there are there and the people who are just trolls aren't there it's sort of like heaven so I would not be surprised to see more sort of digital tribes if you will Tribes of preference people say yeah I'd like to I'd like to be behind that big wall pay a few bucks a month and be part of that thing so I've got a feeling that depending on who the personalities are and what the purpose of forming these little digital warlord fiefdom you know they don't have any power they're just maybe influence it could be a big deal imagine if you would somebody putting together a subscription base that a million people in it you know if you had a million subscribers to your online whatever your content you would have a lot of influence over stuff because you could make anything viral all you'd have to do is say here's my tweet and your million subscribers would say I'll retweet that I like this person so kind of look for that that that's my prediction that you'll see you'll see community slash tribes behind subscription services where there's like entire power bases built up how much does that matter well let me give you two examples today in the news we find out that the president has signed an executive order to look into the regulations that got temporarily canceled for the coronavirus to see how many of them should stay canceled now one of the ones on the list is allowing telemedicine across state lines now if you've been with me since the beginning of the crisis you know that that came from this so the idea to drop that restriction of telemedicine across state lines happened because I happen to be aware of that issue because my own startup one hub tribe we dealt with that so I just happen to be aware of it as a big deal so because of you the audience you allowed me to have higher visibility so my visibility in the world is completely dependent on how many of you there are you're the ones making the you know making this a thing you're the ones who retweet me you're the ones who basically give it all the energy because you gave it energy that allowed me to have a a channel if you will through Jonah Shumate who was helping me connect the good ideas that were coming through me I wasn't coming up with them all but a lot of people were suggesting things to me and then Jonah who had watched this periscope and he's associated with I'm sorry he's working in the office of Representative Crawford and so he was helping me get the good ideas to the people who are asking for good ideas and in the middle of in the beginning of a crisis the people in charge are really looking for ideas like okay you have an idea anybody so it was a perfect time for good ideas to get to the right place and the the telemedicine idea came from this experience you know through Jonah Jonah set it up to Mark Meadows Mark Meadows had good idea it's on the list and next thing you know telemedicine is legal across state lines boom how big a deal is that might be a gigantic deal I mean that's the sort of deal that could change the entire cost structure of healthcare that's how big a deal it is and I'm not sure it would have happened without the crisis and without you know without noticing that there was this little crease of opportunity and I you know I aimed for the crease because I thought okay this is you you can see that there's this little crack you know in reality where if I can get through it this telemedicine thing you might be sticky might be able to make this change you know otherwise regulations and I don't the AMA who I don't know who else would be involved with it but obviously it wasn't going to happen on its own so somebody said New York is not allowing telemedicine you nothing's easy is it all right so here's another example mark Snyder was pointing out recently and I noticed as well that Jack Dorsey co-founder of Twitter tweeted out an article about the Department of Energy started a new office of nuclear energy project so there so the government is basically putting in 230 million dollars to to boost generation for the so-called new generation of nuclear development that will be resistant pretty much impossible to melt down at least melt down in the normal way that that you think about it so they'll be designed that if they fail they just stop working which is the big problem with current nuclear designs if they fail they they can release radiation and be bad for the neighborhood but the new designs would be designed that if they stopped working they just stopped working which is a good thing and they could be designed to be modular and smaller and have a whole bunch of you know cost and safety benefits that would be way beyond anything that we're looking at the current generations which are actually also pretty safe generation 3 I think is at zero problems and that's the current generation anyway here's this story about this that so mark is speculating and I think this is reasonable that maybe Jack's exposure to generation four and the fact that he would retweet that article probably I don't know probably is too strong but you may have heard it from here because I know jack watches this sometimes so if you're watching Jack hi now what's interesting about this is that not only is of course anything that Jack tweets is going to make news because because it's Jack but he would be associated more with you would imagine in your own biased of thinking you and imagine that Jack would be associated the political left now I would say that's probably not let me see I hate to categorize anybody else's opinion so I want to be really careful the way I said I would say that trying to pigeonhole Jack into a category would be a mistake and that he is in the category of free thinkers who I believe would just follow the follow the data so if the data excuse left I think he'd go there if the data happens to be compatible with something on the right but the data is of the data I think he'd go there now you can't say that about a lot of people you know I would say that about Joe Rogan I'll just to throw him back in the conversation I believe Joe Rogan is neither left nor right but would look at an argument and would judge it and go where the argument takes them I don't think there are a lot of people in the world who do that try to do that or even can do that you know navall rava Conte you'd be another example I would always trust the Vall to look at the whole field look at the data and then make a decision that you know common sense and reason and wisdom and and and data taken to I would never expect any of the guys I just mentioned to just go left or right because that's where the team is they just don't do that you know sort of itches another one can you imagine sort of it's just taking a team side no just just not part of his makeup he's gonna follow the information have his own opinion so I would say the Jackson that category of a fairly small group of people that you could depend on to just look at the argument and then yeah Matt Taibbi there's another good example Matt Taibbi you could depend on to just look at the whole field so what's the big deal about this is that you know I've been trying to educate people watching this periscope about generation for most of that comes from March nighters work and maybe it made a difference so maybe this is another example we don't know I mean Jack reads lots of stuff so he may have he may have known about this from others and just thought it was interesting but there's a good chance that what we're doing a year to educate all of you is having an effect right so yeah we can't it's it's a legitimate to trace any one thing back to you know one source because it's a big world with lots of variables but I like to think that we were productive at the very least productive in getting the generation four message out so thanks to Mark Snyder changing the world I like that little the old saying you know the the pessimist says well one person one person can change the world what can I do just one person I can't change the world and then the smarter person says the only way the world has ever been changed is by one person it's always that way one person always changes the world because it starts somewhere the things don't start with a thousand people they always start with one so you know if you want to be the the pessimist you can say that one person can't change the world if you want to be the optimist that just gave you two examples where it happened maybe alright here's my favorite story of the day this is from a tweet from Trump I think this is today or yesterday Roger stone has been treated very unfairly so it's not the first part of the tweet that's funny it's wait for the end part so the first part is just is set up Roger stone has been treated very unfairly how about that jury 401 does anybody think that was fair disgraceful stay tuned for Fox News and guys and then he says and guys like low ratings psycho Joe Scarborough are allowed to walk the streets open the cold case a cold case so if you don't know what that story's about Joe Scarborough and the alleged cold case Jake Tapper tweeted the president's tweet and gave you some context so Jake says yet again the press it uses the death of Laurie kizuite sis 28 I guess she died at age 28 to attack Joe Scarborough in 2001 she fainted hitting her head an autopsy revealed a heart condition there's no cold case it's a tragedy he cruelly exploit exploits indecent now I won't weigh in on the opinion if this is cruel exploitation or indecent because we're in the political season and it's hard to think of anything that isn't is there anything in this whole political race that isn't indecent to think cruel I mean Pelosi just called Trump morbidly obese yesterday which surprisingly I saw a write-up that says he that says he's actually only just a few pounds into the obese category because he's so tall he can handle it he can handle the weight yeah better than most people so there's only barely into the you know you should lose you know good ten or twenty pounds would be good for him I think according to his doctor but he's not morbidly obese so so weird I think we're in a world in which people will say absolutely anything so you know Don Jr used the the pedophile world word against Jose against Joe Biden and of course there's no evidence or even an allegation of that but it's you know and he didn't mean it seriously either yeah it was obvious he didn't mean it in the literal sense but we're in that world where people will say absolutely anything about anybody but and once you've learned that there's no limit on what ridiculous things you can claim why would you stock with something that's only a little bit ridiculous right so this is one of the presidents great skills I talked about finding free money and picking it up if you know you live in the world where the other side can say you know the steel dossier might have been real that's the world he lives in trumpet did not make the roux there was no point at which Trump said all right let's service agree on the rules do you think it's okay to make wildly ridiculous claims that are even involving illegalities and jail time terms and everything do you think that would be okay he never was in that conversation it just became the standard if you're playing a game and someone else has said here are their rules and then you play with those rules as someone else established are you indecent well you'd be indecent if you made those rules if you are the one who came up with it in the first place or the first one to act and decently you'd have something to answer to I think so I think it would be fair to say that if you were the one who introduced the idea of going too far and making ridiculous you know legal allegations against people based on no evidence whatsoever if you're the one who started it yeah I think you'd have some explaining to do but I don't think he started it I think he simply said well what are the rules of the game I'm gonna play this game can somebody explain the rules all right all right wait you're telling me I can say absolutely anything I can just make stuff up I can make an allegation to somebody murdered and raped and you know genocide anything and the answer is yep you can say absolutely anything in a political context apparently there's just no no restrictions whatsoever not only that but if you were to artificially limit yourself and the other side did not you can't even win so it's not only not only is he playing by the rules he's playing by the only rules that can win the hard rules you know the ones where you can say anything so and so he and so he is so I just look at this as funny because when Trump accuses Joe Scarborough of this and I should say as clearly as possible I would imagine you know I wasn't there but I would imagine that Jake's framing of this is accurate meaning that it probably is true that there's nothing that would suggest a crime even happened much less than anybody in particular was associated with it so I think it's true that there's literally nothing there but the fact that the president calls it a cold case you have to know that's tongue in cheek right its tongue in cheek because a he knows people will believe it B might make a difference I mean in terms of you know the the back and forth of how people feel about things it might change people's opinion of Joe of Joe Scarborough so the fact that he would be so ballsy to throw in the suggestion that Scarborough murdered a young woman in his office so yeah I don't know how you could take it too seriously but somebody will somebody's gonna believe that really happened all right let's say so here's an interesting story so dr.
Carroll it's a man's name Carroll ka ro L Sakura he's an oncologist and former chief of the World Health Organisation's cancer program so he's looking at the data from around the world where the some of the lockdowns have ended and he is puzzled he is puzzled because if you look at where the lockdowns ended and people have gone back to work the death rate is not spiking and apparent according to him he says it's a it's as though something has changed meaning there's something that's keeping the virus from raging it says so something has changed and none of us can explain why did you remember when Trump made that statement he's been continually mocked for that we might say the virus just go away and people said that doesn't happen viruses don't just go away and then there was some other famous virologist who said the same thing he said you know sometimes these things just go away and and here's the funny thing you don't know why so even the top experts say they don't know why any virus goes away they know it does no somebody's saying herd immunity but apparently the experts do not say that apparently viruses go away with you doesn't think much herd immunity so if that's not the the primary thing there's always some but apparently that's not the explanation it's part of the story but I guess we don't know why some viruses just go away if I had to speculate I well I will speculate I'm going to speculate that some people are more likely to get any particular virus and there could be the you reach herd immunity at like this is just speculation with no background whatsoever it could be that for some kinds of viruses you reach a an effective herd immunity that may be 30 percent infected now if everybody could get every virus 30 percent wouldn't stop anything but if it turns out that viruses can affect some people and sort of not affect others maybe 30 percent is enough so maybe there's some mystery like that that's just speculation don't take that seriously but I love the fact that all we after everything we've learned and studied and all the experts and everything that we could do the one thing that everybody agrees should make the death rate go up a hundred percent of experts agree they're loosening the restrictions on travel and everything you should make the death rate go up but maybe it's not what if it doesn't so this is what I've been telling you for the last day or two in two weeks if if things if everything's loosened up and in two weeks the death rate either declines a little bit or stays flat it's over we're back to work because you're not going to be able to keep anybody home if after a few weeks of loosening up there's no change in the data in terms of worsening if it's not worsening two weeks from now I think if things are gonna open up now when I say things are gonna open up I don't think large events are gonna happen right away you know but things like school for example and go to work and open your restaurant but do things smart I think all that's gonna come together pretty quickly if this holds which is we don't know why but the rates are not going up as much as possible here's my best guess about why the rates are not going up it's not much of a guess actually it was another study team of scientists non-kin kong they did some tests with I don't hamsters or something and they determined that wearing masks is 75% effective it reduces droplets by 75% doesn't it seem to you that with all the masks people are wearing and the attention they're giving to social distancing that and also learning what the worst things are we've learned now that if you're around somebody who's singing or talking loudly for a long time you're gonna get it you now have an excuse not to be around loud talkers if you've got a loud Howard and you're into your life you know that person who just talks too loudly all the time apparently they're the spreaders if you had it you could probably live with somebody it was a soft talker and didn't talk much I I'll bet you know Christina could have the coronavirus tomorrow but because she doesn't talk much and she's a soft to talker there wouldn't be much coming out of her mouth but apparently the the loud talkers and the and the the choir singing so if they're singing involved apparently there's more volume and you could be a super spreader just by being a loud talker so just knowing that knowing that if you stay out of those specific environments you know probably nobody caught the kuru Navarre at the beach this weekend duh don't you think they just doesn't nobody got it at the beach I'll bat I'll bet there was something close to zero transmission of all the people who went to the beach all weekend so now that we know stuff like that and of course every fact that I give you is subject to being changed tomorrow learning new things but don't you think that between mass being 75 percent effective and that we've all learned what to do and what not to do for a while I wouldn't be surprised if we could go back to work and keep infections dropping all that we can so I've got a feeling you're going to see nonstop good news for the next few weeks I'm watching the Susan Rice story about parently we've got new new documents or something and it turns out that Comey was selling the idea of general Flynn being maybe suspiciously tied to Russia based on the fact that they had more communication than Comey expected that they would keeping in mind that these are people who have to work together in a few months because that's the job that Flynn has and that's the job that kids liiike has they they're they were doing the most normal thing in the world which is getting ready for them to you know getting ready for the new administration and these are the very people who would be talking now is that a good reason to suspect somebody being a spy because let me ask you this if it's your job to talk to somebody you know in another organization or country and you talk to them a lot would that be an example of doing your job well would it be an example of not doing your job or would it be an example of being a Russian asset I'm pretty sure that if you talk a little bit more than normal to the person who it's your job to talk to and wouldn't it be if you had more communication not less that's more of an indication of doing a good job do you remember I told you about the new CEO move when Pence and Trump were first elected but not yet sworn in there was a few months there and Trump already started to bring jobs back he wasn't even on the job it was the new CEO move where he went - I guess Ford and carrier tried to talk him into keeping jobs I don't know how successful it was but it left the left the impression that Trump and pence were jobs jobs jobs we're gonna give you jobs even before work or on the job I'm not even gonna take a paycheck and I'm I'm gonna be so fast on this job stuff I'm all over it with the jobs so if you watch Flynn doing exactly the same thing that I praised at the time as somebody doing the job before the job even starts yesterday on last night in periscope somebody was asking me about how to do a job interview I didn't give you this advice but it's great advice one way to get a job is to just do it without getting paid you know if you're let's say you're working at your corporate job and you're doing your regular job but the job you want is some other job a better job just start doing it do your own job and our weekends nights spare time whatever and just start doing the other job because you're that you're gonna be the obvious person to be promoted into it if you're already doing it at least a little bit so I have nothing but the utmost respect for people who start their job before they start their job if you ask me who's the superstar in the administration the one who waited for inauguration day or the one who started hard on day one on the top priority rushes kind of a top priority right you know it's at the top three probably for that kind of job and so if the guy hit the ground running worked extra hard before he was even getting a paycheck let's send him to jail for that that's what happened he was a guy who did extra work before he got his paycheck on exactly the right priority and they almost sent him to jail for it unbelievable anyway so I don't know if we'll ever have enough of a smoking gun that Obama or Susan Rice or anybody we're gonna have to you know answer to it I don't think so I think I think it will end in murkiness where it is and then everybody will just retreat to their side so howard kurtz who talks about media and fox news and elsewhere he was talking about the fact that the the the polls don't move no matter what happens in the real world that no matter what Biden does no matter what Trump does the polls come out and they're just bouncing around in the same little narrow level it's as if it's as if our preferences for voting are completely now disconnected from the candidates and he makes a good case because literally no matter what happens the poll numbers don't change and there's some stuff happening here's one example that Howard Kurtz gives in his article about something that you would expect to change the polling but it didn't and it says he talked about Trump the quote proudly announcing that he's taking hydroxychloroquine against the advice of most medical experts and that you know he said if that doesn't turn public opinion then Trump must be invulnerable now the size sentence capture what really happened would you say that a good description of events is that the president proudly announced that he's taking hydroxychloroquine against the advice of most medical experts number one the word it proudly is your tip-off from mind-reading did the president say it proudly did you pick up proudly did you detect that because I didn't I I detected matter-of-factness I detected him talking in terms of risk management certainly there was a political dimension but did you see proudly see that that's one of those key words that just says ah whatever follows and the rest of this sentence can be safely ignored alright because if you start out with a mind-reading word it's like alright i'm i've now connected to his mind okay yeah i could see some pride in there about the hydroxychloroquine okay let us go on oh no you don't need to go on once somebody admits there they're engaged in mind-reading stop reading there's nothing that follows the word proudly that could possibly help you but here's the rest of the sentence these proudly using it against the advice of most medical experts now is that a true statement yes that is a true statement is against the advice of most medical experts it is not against the advice of the president's own doctor the president's own doctor said yeah if you if you want it risk management makes sense go ahead we're monitoring you so it's not like a regular person don't you think it was important to mention that the president's own doctor was okay with it do you think it would be important to notice how many people on the front line who are medical doctors are using it do you think it would be important to note that something like a quarter of all doctors would and that it's an off-label use so any off-label use is going to be seventy five percent of doctors think it's a bad idea you know that's an exaggeration but the point is if it's an off-label use you're not going to get everybody to agree what would be the other example of an off-label use where all the doctors are on the same page probably not a lot of them might be a few so here's my and he also talks about Joe Biden having a complicated life and oh well this is something else so there's another story on CNN I think it was talking about Tara Reid the accuser of Joe Biden and it was saying how she has a complicated life and there are conflicting accounts that muddle the efforts to understand Tara Reid's allegation against Joe Biden in other words CNN hired two women to research and write an article the fact that they're both women is important to the story because Biden was accused by a woman and the two women go through Tara Reid's background trying to paint a picture that maybe she's not the most reliable witness so it's basically just a takedown of a witness real nice because what about that credibility by the way you know the the whole all women should be believed but we believe Joe Biden this time blah blah I feel like the way we should be talking about that is credibility which is different than main true something it can be credibly reported and then you find that it's not true but it was still Preda below found at the time and I think that with these these accusations you should say that the accuser is credible if the accuser is credible Tara Reid I think is credible and and then but then you should also be able to say that if the accused has a pretty good defense you can say that's credible too there's nothing wrong with saying that both the accuser and the accused have credible stories only one of them is true at most they could both not be true but only one of them is true at most but they could both be credible and I think you just you'll leave it there you can be credible turned out you're wrong but you could still be credible all right so here's my larger point it seems to me that Howard Kurtz and most of the world is looking at it as still a contest between two candidates but I think it's ceased being a contest between two candidates some time ago instead it became a contest between the the news media versus the other news media and so I would propose this the reason that no matter what the candidates do doesn't move the polling what howard kurtz the way he described that is that people have just go onto their team and it doesn't matter what their team goes wrong they're just gonna be on their team so there's lots of evidence for that so i'd say that the howard kurtz interpretation is a credible one meaning that it does look like it's just team play in politics and and we are ignoring the flaws of our preferred candidate to emphasize the flaws of the other ones and that's all that's happening maybe maybe that's all that's happening I would like to give this a different spin the reason that things don't move because the candidate no matter what the candidates do is that the other side never hears it it doesn't matter what Joe Biden does if his team isn't aware of it right that they just don't see the same reporting as the other side so I would argue that we're not we're no longer in a system in which you have something like democracy and something like the candidates making their best case and then the public listening to the candidates and then the public making a decision based on the candidates that's probably what it used to be but today this is absolutely nothing but a massive brainwashing operation and you've got two massive brainwashing entities competing so you've got the the left main stream media CNN MSNBC who are doing this massive brainwashing operation if they succeed it literally doesn't matter to the candidate this do I need to prove that it doesn't matter who the candidate is because the candidate is Joe Biden do I need anymore no evidence that it doesn't matter who the candidate is that's pretty conclusive isn't it do you need to there's no questions left if Joe Biden as the candidate is good enough then it's not about the candidate we are not in a world where the candidate matters think about that we drifted into a world where the actual quality of the candidate is not a variable because it's not it's not you could replace either candidate with anybody and their poll numbers would be frickin identical anybody now you've got the two most different weird candidates in the world I mean we've never seen anything like this there's nothing like Trump we've never seen anything like that but there's also nothing like Biden somebody decomposing in their own basement on the edge of death who's leading in the polls to be the next president of the United States there's no way this has to do with the candidates anymore we've completely left that world it is just the you know the persuasive power of the right entities and the persuasive power of the left-leaning entities and that's the battle the actual candidate you can substitute them and it wouldn't matter now of course because we only talk about the candidates and their opinions and their personalities and stuff it seems the opposite but that's the magic trick to boost bolster my my speculation here's an example so Frank Bruni brunei writing for the New York Times says this and look out direct this is to my point so Frank Bruni says please tell me why I should care whether Joe Biden is declining mentally what let me read that first sentence again please tell me why I should care whether Joe Biden is declining mentally when President Trump bought him down morally long ago he goes I'm serious I'd rather drink milk past its expiration date than arsenic so here's a Biden supporter who's saying directly and in public that he's supporting something somebody with declining mental ability and that he's happy about it meaning that he prefers it over the alternative because here's the alternative that Donald Trump bought him down morally long ago now suppose that was true what if that was true let's say it was true that his interpretation that Trump bottomed out morally long ago wouldn't that indicate that we would see the the impact of that morally bottoming out by now in other words would your taxes be higher because Trump allegedly bottomed out morally a long time ago remember he's saying that what happened a long time ago so if there are impacts from all this morally bottoming out we'd be seeing them now did we did Trump not close the airport on time from China because he was a morally challenged no I think he got that right right did Trump not cut the regulations that were limiting us during the crisis did he did he fail to cut some regulations because he had morally bottomed out I don't remember that story I think he just cut regulations really quickly did did we not get ventilators on time because the President had morally bottomed out I don't remember that story I feel like we got ventilators and more than we needed and just go down the line you pick any topic trade deal taxes you name it the Supreme Court find me one example where the events of the world were the decisions of the president somehow would correspond to this horrible problem that he had morally bottomed out what exactly was that can you give me an example of that now I get it that you don't like his person and his character I get it we've heard you say that but can you give me an example of how that how that affected me you know can I have a choice of somebody who you know like I can't see into his soul so I don't know if there's anything dark in his inner soul in his mind but I like low taxes I like being tough with China you know give me an example of where where things went wrong so the fact that Frank Bruni Bruni Rudy I wish I could pronounce his name so I apologize if I'm saying wrong the fact that he would say out loud that he would pick a somebody in a declining mental state in his own words declining mentally and he says why should he care holy cow but he goes on so as soon as more of this Frank to Brunei stuff let's say that oh and you're saying that Trump has bottomed down morally and here's an example so so here's how you know that's a big problem the Trump bought him that morally so listen to this he's the example is that that Trump said recently that Biden quote has absolutely no idea what's happening Trump also said quote he doesn't know he's alive so Trump is questioning the mental ability of Joe Biden and that's an example of Trump's low moral standards in the same article the very first sentence the author of the article Frank Bruni question did Joe Biden's mental ability I'm not even making this up I mean I'm reading it to you right here so the statement is that anybody who had questioned Joe Biden's mental acuity is being morally low and the author does that in his first sentence questions Joe Biden's mental acuity in the first sentence and that that's his best example of what's wrong with Trump is the thing he did it in his first sentence now if you're telling me that these people have a great awareness of their own actions I would say maybe not I'm being told in the comments that the pronunciation is bruni I hope that's right and then Frank Bruni goes on to talk about Biden and he says quote besides the precise agility of his mind has nothing nothing to do with the fundamental decency of his values at the end of the day and by the way anybody who says at the end of the day they should no longer be writers you should be you should have to be you should have to change professions if you ever use this this sentence in public writing at the end of the day that's your writers tip of the day the the most hacked writing in the world uses the phrase at the end of the day I mean really you couldn't find another way to express that all right at the end of the day Biden can be trusted to do what Trump didn't and won't quote meaning the stock his administration with qualified professionals now is that true is that true do you think that Trump has not stalked his administration with qualified professionals I would say he's got I would say Steve minuchin is a superstar I would say that all of the departments seem to be doing their jobs for the most part I got some questions about the FDA I would say that I would say that Pompeyo is great I would say that I think you could name a whole bunch of people who were actually really really good couldn't you I would put Jared on the list as being a superstar I don't know I've got a feeling that you could pick apart any administration and you could find a number of political hires aren't they're always political hires it's sort of built into the process I don't know the Trump is doing any better or worse in terms of staffing that's just an opinion well what would be your yeah well Perdue okay so there yeah so I'm not gonna argue that the Trump administration had all superstars but is it really different I mean could you really do you think you could objectively look at the the people that Trump has hired and cycled through and fired and rehired do you think that you could really put any any administration up against any other and that one would look like the incompetently staffed one I feel like no I feel like they would all look like here's my guess I feel like every administration is probably 70% effective people and maybe 30% political you know I had to return a favor but that's also how you get elected if you haven't taken some political favors you probably didn't get elected so we sort of also we all just sort of wince and say yeah I hate that part but they all do it it's how they got elected it's fairly transparent you know when a when a big donor becomes a cabinet head yeah Peter Navarro I'd say he's a star make a good example so I don't know that this claim holds up it would be interesting if there was any I don't know if there's any way to actually prove it but it all comes down to a very subjective statement that you know some group of people are less talented than others we don't know that that's completely unknowable if you're not there you know you don't really know so and this really sums it up all right so my hypothesis is the candidates have stopped mattering and it's just a brainwash competition between the the left media and the right media and I will put a bow on that point by talking about date Oliver Darcy he's with CNN so Oliver Darcy is tweeting about the fact that the Fox News hosts had a variety of opinion on the president taking hydroxychloroquine which we know to be true so it's a true fact that the Fox News hosts have talked about it differently I'm ambiguous Lee they've talked about it differently but they've also had experts on who also talked about it differently so Darcy writes us Fox can't get its story straight wot can't get its story straight what's that mean did I just describe a network thick quote can't get its story straight what does that mean should there be one story why can't Neil Cavuto have a different opinion than Laura Ingraham is that not allowed why couldn't Tucker have a different opinion than somebody on the five if he does don't know if he does why can't they do that and the fact that a CNN person would start with the very first sentence Fox can't get its story straight doesn't that indicate that if you work at CNN wait for it yes somebody's already had of me wait for it isn't he telling us fairly directly that at CNN they have to get their story straight what does that be yeah what does it mean to get your story straight well the context he's offering is that everybody says the same thing I believe he's admitting in public that Fox has a diversity of opinions and CNN does not present a diversity of opinions apparently by choice he's saying it directly easy if you use the the phrase get your stories straight as a criticism of the competing Network how do you not interpret that as CNN works hard to get their story straight and again since the story is opinion you know whether you should or should not you know say something or do something with ID rocks chloroquine it's really opinion story given that the experts have different opinions and we know that should you get your opinions straight I think see that just admitted that they're not even in the business of news and that seems like a pretty direct admission so that's fascinating all right yeah all right let me see if there's anything else to talk about here fill the kirpan keer p.m.
and that's an interesting string of tweets and he's talking about the fact that the the elderly are still the main people dying so even today on May 20th we've known now for how many months have we known that age is the biggest risk factor we've known that since correct me January have we known since January that this virus really attacks the the elderly like super super hard we've known that right how long have we been talking about the strategy of super protecting the elderly and then letting the younger people take more of a risk we've been talking about that for months and yet today the elderly the very group that we've identified and everybody agrees there's no no conversation on this everyone agrees these are the most dangerous at risk group and we're not protecting them now I have to think that people are doing a lot of stuff there must be a lot of activity going on to try to protect them but we're failing can you believe that after three months of knowing exactly who's at risk exactly I mean you could you could list unless a guy here's 185 years old you're at risk we know who's at risk at the highest risk and we're still not protecting that what's up with that is it is there something about the nature of the virus there's just too hard maybe there's maybe you can try as hard as you can and you just can't get it done but today still still they're dying at the at the Wraith are dying do you know what the right do you know what the correct rate of death from coronavirus should be for anybody over 80 if you're over 80 what should be your death rate from coronavirus in the United States 0-0 that's what it should be if there's an 85 year old who's having any contact with somebody who could have also had contact with the coronavirus aren't we doing it wrong isn't there some way you can make sure that they don't have any contact with the virus there's got to be a way to do that clearly we're not getting it done all right so that's the that's the bad news but we don't like to end on bad news do we we do not so recapping the good news here it is you want to you're really good news I'm gonna give you some real direct reliable good news yesterday I talked to the the most successful real estate broker in my area so it's a friend in the neighborhood is probably the top real estate producer in my area and as of last night I asked what's the real estate market because I thought to myself Oh real estate is gonna get killed right don't you assume don't you assume real estate is going to get killed goodbye troll so I asked her what's happening with real estate sales and guess what strong as ever this week homes are being sold for higher than asking price this week so I've been Northern California just for reference now in Northern California you know where I am in the East Bay outside of San Francisco where we're sort of a Silicon Valley adjacent so it's it's a lot of people who didn't lose their jobs because a lot of you know technology jobs they just worked at home so you know I'm in an unusual area and that we were unusually lightly affected but could you imagine that people are paying over the asking price for homes this week this is not mind-blowing doesn't that tell you that the the economy is going to come back faster of course it is yeah interest rates are low so that makes a big difference to somebody says our Beach condo is on fire in Florida meaning lots of demand yeah so here's what I expect look at the stock market did you think the stock market should be I don't know what it's doing at the moment let me let me just take a peek at it so I know if I'm stock market's up so so it's it's up sharply did you see that comment did you see the stock market up sharply and home prices selling above their asking prices there's something happening here that's a big deal now I gotta say I think there's something about the Trump administration that even people who don't like Trump still think he can goose the economy I feel like even his haters in there in their secret moments would say to themselves I hate everything about this president but if I'm being honest privately if I had to pick one person in the history of civilization to be the president during this exact situation meaning that somebody needs to get the economy going honestly I can't think of a better choice you know and and you know I'm not just cheerleading for the president because I've also wasn't vicious in my criticisms of the early crisis task forces the reporting on them and a lot of stuff about that so I've been vicious about his communication his empathy etc early on so I'm not just you know giving him a free pass here but honestly he is exactly the right person for this next phase exactly and I say this all the time and I believe I'm the only person in civilization who holds this opinion there's no such thing as a good president that's my opinion there's no such thing as a good president there is only a lucky coincidence between the the problems and the situations of the time and the right personality you know with the right skill set you can have exactly the right president for exactly the right problem and we have that right now we did not have exactly the right president for exactly the right problem when it was empathy and you're sort of caring for the psychology of the country and saying things that made you feel safe about you know the medical situation and talking about them and the most clinical ways as opposed to getting people all worked up about some drug that hasn't passed enough tests so Trump was not the right fit for that well man is he the right fit for this next part don't you see it this is this just me being crazy because I feel like you couldn't pick a better person for this by the way I just saw Bloomberg's name go by in the comments I only recently learned that Stacey Abrams is working for some organization that's funded by Bloomberg so is Stacey Abrams Mike Bloomberg's play to run the country because proves you know a lot of politicians have at least one billionaire that's sort of their friend if you know what I mean so his Stacey Abrams just a Mike Bloomberg cutout and he is actually still running for president but he's going to do it by trying to get Stacey Abrams as the vice president and then Biden would be you know sort of less important that's what it looks like right it looks like a Mike Bloomberg play to run the country that's my take on it anyway I think the economy is going to do great in 2021 and Beyond and the golden age is coming we're gonna have our generation for nuclear energy you've got a OC saying that the green new deal doesn't even have a price tag rather it's a set of shared values do you know what value I share with a OC same ones you do turns out yeah I would like cheap clean energy with no risk of the planet overheating I don't know how big the risk is but I'd like that to be zero and I'd like to do it with generation four nuclear and smarter technology so maybe we're not so far apart at all and maybe the Golden Age starts now I'll talk to you tonight
[Music]
yes as the shades go down
you and I get to enjoy this sacred time
in the morning and what I say is sacred
Oh
I mean sacred yes I do because we get to
enjoy the simultaneous that I almost
feel sorry for the people who aren't
here they do not get to enjoy the
simultaneous it and it's so sad because
there's so little that they need in
order to enjoy it how much do they need
well all they need is a cup or a mug or
a glass of tankard chelators Titanic
empty Joker flask a vessel of any kind
fill it with your favorite liquid I like
coffee enjoyed me now for the
unparalleled pleasure the dopamine here
the day the thing that makes everything
better
including the damn pandemic it's called
the simultaneous epitaph is now go this
is my imagination or my zinc levels
rising right now feels like it so here's
a little insight so we've been talking
about hydroxychloroquine and the
president taking it and I've mentioned a
number of times that the studies they
show at being used without zinc maybe
they as if they're mice it matters too
but if you test it without the zinc
you're testing it without the active
part so of course that doesn't work but
I'm starting to see some indications
unreliably I'll put that unreliably part
in front and I'll put it on the back as
well
unreliably that it might be the zinc
that's the only part that matters so it
might be the hydroxyl chloroquine was
always just a fake-out it was only the
fact that it was paired with the zinc it
might be just the zinc so I'm seeing
some people talking about that online
but again I will bookend this with
unreliable unreliable everything here
about
therapeutic vaccines vitamins minerals
you just assume every bit of it is
unreliable because it is none of it is
reliable but keep an eye on zinc I'm
going to say that that has caught my
attention all right
this Joe Rogan moved to Spotify I'm
trying to decide how big a deal this is
now obviously it's a real big deal for
him I'm delighted that he he made that
work Joe Rogan I often talk about as one
of my examples of a talent stack done
right if you were to look at each of Joe
Rogan's individual skills you would say
to yourself oh that one's that was
really good you know that was pretty
great you know then that one's good that
was great but you wouldn't find that one
specific thing that he does better than
all the people in the world
well you'd find instead is about 25
things that he does better than just
about everybody if you could do 25
things better than just about everybody
you get to be Joe Rogan and you know
probably have a hundred billion dollar
payday so what I say he does 20 things
25 things well I'm talking about
everything from and to be honest you
have to manage your look if you're on a
video thing he does that well he's got a
great look you know that works for what
he does he's got a whole bunch of skills
he can talk about he's you know he's
he's funny
he's good on video he does stand-up he
knows how to work you know in an
interview obviously knows how to deal
with people it was about a whole bunch
of topics I mean I don't know how many
skills he put together but it's probably
something like 25 different sub skills
that he stacked together just over time
you could just see him building up the
you know the power level over time but
here's what here's what really impresses
me about it aside from the fact that he
strategically managed his career better
than I know better than everybody
you know has anybody ever done it better
than that because you know if you look
at other stuff like you know Facebook or
you know somebody starts a social media
platform quite often there's a big piece
of luck involved or you know somebody
was gonna make a Facebook the Facebook
and you know Zuckerberg was there but if
you look at Joe Rogan's career I mean he
just carved that out of a rock you know
that just wasn't there it wasn't gonna
happen on its own you know I think
social media platforms probably were
gonna happen you know somebody was gonna
make one and one of them would be the
better ones and but the you know the Joe
Rogan experience that just didn't have
to happen
he just carved that out of nothing so
that's just more impressive to me so
here's the interesting part that I'm
tracking I have a theory that one of the
biggest forces affecting the
civilization is known but
underappreciated and that is that our
attention spans are shrinking and our
attention spans are shrinking for the
obvious reasons right our digital our
digital devices give us a little quick
hits of dopamine to the point where I
actually timed and I told you this
before I timed how long it takes me to
turn on my regular legacy television and
wait for the prompts to come on and work
through them and find a show and it
takes about 18 seconds which I find
unbearable 18 seconds of just looking
for something to do while you're sitting
there is way longer than I'm willing to
wait because in 18 seconds I could have
5 to 10 dopamine hits from Twitter or I
could go to locals and get you know five
dopamine hits and fit in 18 seconds so I
would say that normal legacy stuff is no
longer competitive because our attention
spans have shrunk below the the baseline
that they can get my regular television
on a regular TV in my
just isn't that fast I don't know how
they're gonna make that fast enough but
I would say more generally the
advertising model is going to decline
quite a bit it won't disappear but the
problem is that I think advertiser is
going to notice it didn't make much
difference but they're not getting as
much benefit from advertising as they
hoped except for the kind of
advertisement where you're finding out
about something existing which always
works yes if you don't know something
exists you're not going to buy it
but among the generic stuff advertising
doesn't seem to make much difference and
so there's that but I think the
attention span part is the other so I
think things are going to move towards
subscription services and then here's
the big prediction digital warlords so
I'm going to make up that term and see
if it sticks
digital warlords so a digital warlord
would be now somebody who's interested
in war that I'm just using it as a
colorful term but rather somebody who
has a community that is defined usually
by a subscription
so now Joe Rogan is going from an
advertising model on wherever he is to
Spotify and I don't know exactly how
that's going to be handled I guess if
you're a member or maybe if you're not
you can watch it there but whatever the
deal is I think he's just being paid
directly by Spotify so he'll be leaving
I think I think he's leaving the
advertising model behind I - by going to
locals have a subscription model that
I'm pursuing and what happens in both
cases is you end up walling off the
people who care from the people who are
just trolls which is a gigantic
breakthrough if you're if you're creator
having any kind of environment where the
people who want to be there are there
and the people who are just trolls
aren't there it's sort of like heaven so
I would not be surprised to see more
sort of digital tribes if you will
Tribes of preference people say yeah I'd
like to I'd like to be behind that big
wall pay a few bucks a month and be part
of that thing so I've got a feeling that
depending on who the personalities are
and what the purpose of forming these
little digital warlord fiefdom
you know they don't have any power
they're just maybe influence it could be
a big deal imagine if you would somebody
putting together a subscription base
that a million people in it you know if
you had a million subscribers to your
online whatever your content you would
have a lot of influence over stuff
because you could make anything viral
all you'd have to do is say here's my
tweet and your million subscribers would
say I'll retweet that I like this person
so kind of look for that that that's my
prediction that you'll see you'll see
community slash tribes behind
subscription services where there's like
entire power bases built up how much
does that matter well let me give you
two examples today in the news we find
out that the president has signed an
executive order to look into the
regulations that got temporarily
canceled for the coronavirus to see how
many of them should stay canceled now
one of the ones on the list is allowing
telemedicine across state lines now if
you've been with me since the beginning
of the crisis you know that that came
from this so the idea to drop that
restriction of telemedicine across state
lines happened because I happen to be
aware of that issue because my own
startup one hub tribe we dealt with that
so I just happen to be aware of it as a
big deal so because of you the audience
you allowed me to have higher visibility
so my visibility in the world is
completely dependent on how many of you
there are
you're the ones making the you know
making this a thing you're the ones who
retweet me you're the ones who basically
give it all the energy because you gave
it energy that allowed me to have a a
channel if you will through Jonah
Shumate who was helping me connect the
good ideas that were coming through me I
wasn't coming up with them all but a lot
of people were suggesting things to me
and then Jonah who had watched this
periscope and he's associated with I'm
sorry he's working in the office of
Representative Crawford and so he was
helping me get the good ideas to the
people who are asking for good ideas and
in the middle of in the beginning of a
crisis the people in charge are really
looking for ideas like okay you have an
idea anybody so it was a perfect time
for good ideas to get to the right place
and the the telemedicine idea came from
this experience you know through Jonah
Jonah set it up to Mark Meadows Mark
Meadows had good idea it's on the list
and next thing you know telemedicine is
legal across state lines boom how big a
deal is that might be a gigantic deal I
mean that's the sort of deal that could
change the entire cost structure of
healthcare that's how big a deal it is
and I'm not sure it would have happened
without the crisis and without you know
without noticing that there was this
little crease of opportunity and I you
know I aimed for the crease because I
thought okay this is you you can see
that there's this little crack you know
in reality where if I can get through it
this telemedicine thing you might be
sticky might be able to make this change
you know otherwise regulations and I
don't the AMA who I don't know who else
would be involved with it but obviously
it wasn't going to happen on its own so
somebody said New York is not allowing
telemedicine you
nothing's easy is it all right so here's
another example
mark Snyder was pointing out recently
and I noticed as well that Jack Dorsey
co-founder of Twitter tweeted out an
article about the Department of Energy
started a new office of nuclear energy
project so there
so the government is basically putting
in 230 million dollars to to boost
generation for the so-called new
generation of nuclear development that
will be resistant pretty much impossible
to melt down at least melt down in the
normal way that that you think about it
so they'll be designed that if they fail
they just stop working
which is the big problem with current
nuclear designs if they fail they they
can release radiation and be bad for the
neighborhood but the new designs would
be designed that if they stopped working
they just stopped working which is a
good thing and they could be designed to
be modular and smaller and have a whole
bunch of you know cost and safety
benefits that would be way beyond
anything that we're looking at the
current generations which are actually
also pretty safe generation 3 I think is
at zero problems and that's the current
generation anyway here's this story
about this that so mark is speculating
and I think this is reasonable that
maybe Jack's exposure to generation four
and the fact that he would retweet that
article probably I don't know probably
is too strong but you may have heard it
from here because I know jack watches
this sometimes so if you're watching
Jack hi now what's interesting about
this is that not only is of course
anything that Jack tweets is going to
make news because because it's Jack but
he would be associated more with you
would imagine in your own biased of
thinking you and imagine that Jack would
be associated
the political left now I would say
that's probably not let me see I hate to
categorize anybody else's opinion so I
want to be really careful the way I said
I would say that trying to pigeonhole
Jack into a category would be a mistake
and that he is in the category of free
thinkers who I believe would just follow
the follow the data so if the data
excuse left I think he'd go there if the
data happens to be compatible with
something on the right but the data is
of the data
I think he'd go there now you can't say
that about a lot of people you know I
would say that about Joe Rogan
I'll just to throw him back in the
conversation I believe Joe Rogan is
neither left nor right but would look at
an argument and would judge it and go
where the argument takes them I don't
think there are a lot of people in the
world who do that try to do that or even
can do that you know navall rava Conte
you'd be another example I would always
trust the Vall to look at the whole
field look at the data and then make a
decision that you know common sense and
reason and wisdom and and and data taken
to I would never expect any of the guys
I just mentioned to just go left or
right because that's where the team is
they just don't do that you know sort of
itches another one can you imagine sort
of it's just taking a team side no just
just not part of his makeup he's gonna
follow the information have his own
opinion so I would say the Jackson that
category of a fairly small group of
people that you could depend on to just
look at the argument and then yeah Matt
Taibbi there's another good example Matt
Taibbi you could depend on to just look
at the whole field so what's the big
deal about this is that you know I've
been trying to educate people watching
this periscope about generation for most
of that comes from March nighters work
and maybe it made a difference so maybe
this is another example we don't know
I mean Jack reads lots of stuff so he
may have he may have known about this
from others
and just thought it was interesting but
there's a good chance that what we're
doing a year to educate all of you is
having an effect right so yeah we can't
it's it's a legitimate to trace any one
thing back to you know one source
because it's a big world with lots of
variables but I like to think that we
were productive at the very least
productive in getting the generation
four message out so thanks to Mark
Snyder changing the world I like that
little the old saying you know the the
pessimist says well one person one
person can change the world what can I
do just one person I can't change the
world and then the smarter person says
the only way the world has ever been
changed is by one person it's always
that way one person always changes the
world because it starts somewhere the
things don't start with a thousand
people they always start with one so you
know if you want to be the the pessimist
you can say that one person can't change
the world if you want to be the optimist
that just gave you two examples where it
happened maybe alright here's my
favorite story of the day this is from a
tweet from Trump I think this is today
or yesterday Roger stone has been
treated very unfairly so it's not the
first part of the tweet that's funny
it's wait for the end part so the first
part is just is set up Roger stone has
been treated very unfairly how about
that jury 401 does anybody think that
was fair disgraceful
stay tuned for Fox News and guys and
then he says and guys like low ratings
psycho Joe Scarborough are allowed to
walk the streets open the cold case a
cold case so if you don't know what that
story's about Joe Scarborough and the
alleged cold case Jake Tapper tweeted
the president's tweet and gave you some
context so Jake says yet again the press
it uses the death of Laurie kizuite sis
28
I guess she died at age 28 to attack Joe
Scarborough in 2001 she fainted hitting
her head an autopsy revealed a heart
condition there's no cold case it's a
tragedy
he cruelly exploit exploits indecent now
I won't weigh in on the opinion if this
is cruel exploitation or indecent
because we're in the political season
and it's hard to think of anything that
isn't is there anything in this whole
political race that isn't indecent to
think cruel I mean Pelosi just called
Trump morbidly obese yesterday which
surprisingly I saw a write-up that says
he that says he's actually only just a
few pounds into the obese category
because he's so tall he can handle it he
can handle the weight yeah better than
most people so there's only barely into
the you know you should lose you know
good ten or twenty pounds would be good
for him I think according to his doctor
but he's not morbidly obese so so weird
I think we're in a world in which people
will say absolutely anything so you know
Don Jr used the the pedophile world word
against Jose against Joe Biden and of
course there's no evidence or even an
allegation of that but it's you know and
he didn't mean it seriously either yeah
it was obvious he didn't mean it in the
literal sense but we're in that world
where people will say absolutely
anything about anybody but and once
you've learned that there's no limit on
what ridiculous things you can claim why
would you stock with something that's
only a little bit ridiculous right so
this is one of the presidents great
skills I talked about finding free money
and picking it up if you know you live
in the world where the other side can
say you know the steel dossier might
have been real that's the world he lives
in
trumpet did not make the roux
there was no point at which Trump said
all right let's service agree on the
rules do you think it's okay to make
wildly ridiculous claims that are even
involving illegalities and jail time
terms and everything do you think that
would be okay
he never was in that conversation it
just became the standard if you're
playing a game and someone else has said
here are their rules and then you play
with those rules as someone else
established are you indecent well you'd
be indecent if you made those rules if
you are the one who came up with it in
the first place or the first one to act
and decently you'd have something to
answer to I think so I think it would be
fair to say that if you were the one who
introduced the idea of going too far and
making ridiculous you know legal
allegations against people based on no
evidence whatsoever if you're the one
who started it yeah I think you'd have
some explaining to do but I don't think
he started it I think he simply said
well what are the rules of the game I'm
gonna play this game can somebody
explain the rules all right all right
wait you're telling me I can say
absolutely anything I can just make
stuff up I can make an allegation to
somebody murdered and raped and you know
genocide anything and the answer is yep
you can say absolutely anything in a
political context apparently there's
just no no restrictions whatsoever not
only that but if you were to
artificially limit yourself and the
other side did not you can't even win so
it's not only not only is he playing by
the rules he's playing by the only rules
that can win the hard rules you know the
ones where you can say anything so and
so he and so he is so I just look at
this as funny because when Trump accuses
Joe Scarborough of this and I should say
as clearly as possible
I would imagine you know I wasn't there
but I would imagine that Jake's framing
of this is accurate meaning that it
probably is true that there's nothing
that would suggest a crime even happened
much less than anybody in particular was
associated with it so I think it's true
that there's literally nothing there but
the fact that the president calls it a
cold case you have to know that's tongue
in cheek right its tongue in cheek
because a he knows people will believe
it B might make a difference I mean in
terms of you know the the back and forth
of how people feel about things it might
change people's opinion of Joe of Joe
Scarborough so the fact that he would be
so ballsy to throw in the suggestion
that Scarborough murdered a young woman
in his office so yeah I don't know how
you could take it too seriously but
somebody will
somebody's gonna believe that really
happened all right let's say so here's
an interesting story
so dr. Carroll it's a man's name Carroll
ka ro L Sakura he's an oncologist and
former chief of the World Health
Organisation's cancer program so he's
looking at the data from around the
world where the some of the lockdowns
have ended and he is puzzled he is
puzzled because if you look at where the
lockdowns ended and people have gone
back to work the death rate is not
spiking and apparent according to him he
says it's a it's as though something has
changed meaning there's something that's
keeping the virus from raging it says so
something has changed and none of us can
explain why did you remember when Trump
made that statement he's been
continually mocked for that we might say
the virus just go away and people said
that doesn't happen viruses don't just
go away
and then there was some other famous
virologist who said the same thing he
said you know sometimes these things
just go away and and here's the funny
thing you don't know why so even the top
experts say they don't know why any
virus goes away they know it does no
somebody's saying herd immunity but
apparently the experts do not say that
apparently viruses go away with you
doesn't think much herd immunity so if
that's not the the primary thing there's
always some but apparently that's not
the explanation it's part of the story
but I guess we don't know why some
viruses just go away if I had to
speculate I well I will speculate I'm
going to speculate that some people are
more likely to get any particular virus
and there could be the you reach herd
immunity at like this is just
speculation with no background
whatsoever it could be that for some
kinds of viruses you reach a an
effective herd immunity that may be 30
percent infected now if everybody could
get every virus 30 percent wouldn't stop
anything but if it turns out that
viruses can affect some people and sort
of not affect others maybe 30 percent is
enough so maybe there's some mystery
like that that's just speculation don't
take that seriously but I love the fact
that all we after everything we've
learned and studied and all the experts
and everything that we could do the one
thing that everybody agrees should make
the death rate go up a hundred percent
of experts agree they're loosening the
restrictions on travel and everything
you should make the death rate go up but
maybe it's not what if it doesn't so
this is what I've been telling you for
the last day or two in two weeks if if
things if everything's loosened up and
in two weeks the death rate either
declines a little bit or stays flat it's
over
we're back to work because you're not
going to be able to keep anybody home if
after a few weeks of loosening up
there's no change in the data in terms
of worsening if it's not worsening two
weeks from now I think if things are
gonna open up now when I say things are
gonna open up I don't think large events
are gonna happen right away you know but
things like school for example and go to
work and open your restaurant but do
things smart I think all that's gonna
come together pretty quickly if this
holds which is we don't know why but the
rates are not going up as much as
possible here's my best guess about why
the rates are not going up it's not much
of a guess actually it was another study
team of scientists non-kin kong they did
some tests with I don't hamsters or
something and they determined that
wearing masks is 75% effective it
reduces droplets by 75%
doesn't it seem to you that with all the
masks people are wearing and the
attention they're giving to social
distancing that and also learning what
the worst things are we've learned now
that if you're around somebody who's
singing or talking loudly for a long
time you're gonna get it you now have an
excuse not to be around loud talkers if
you've got a loud Howard and you're into
your life you know that person who just
talks too loudly all the time apparently
they're the spreaders if you had it you
could probably live with somebody
it was a soft talker and didn't talk
much I I'll bet you know Christina could
have the coronavirus tomorrow but
because she doesn't talk much and she's
a soft to talker there wouldn't be much
coming out of her mouth but apparently
the the loud talkers and the and the the
choir singing so if they're singing
involved apparently there's more volume
and you could be a super spreader just
by being a loud talker so just knowing
that knowing that if you stay out of
those specific environments you know
probably nobody caught the kuru Navarre
at the beach this weekend duh don't you
think they just doesn't nobody got it at
the beach I'll bat I'll bet there was
something close to zero transmission of
all the people who went to the beach all
weekend so now that we know stuff like
that and of course every fact that I
give you is subject to being changed
tomorrow learning new things but don't
you think that between mass being 75
percent effective and that we've all
learned what to do and what not to do
for a while I wouldn't be surprised if
we could go back to work and keep
infections dropping all that we can so
I've got a feeling you're going to see
nonstop good news for the next few weeks
I'm watching the Susan Rice story about
parently we've got new new documents or
something and it turns out that Comey
was selling the idea of general Flynn
being maybe suspiciously tied to Russia
based on the fact that they had more
communication than Comey expected that
they would keeping in mind that these
are people who have to work together in
a few months because that's the job that
Flynn has and that's the job that kids
liiike has they they're they were doing
the most normal thing in the world which
is getting ready for them to you know
getting ready for the new administration
and these are the very people who would
be talking now is that a good reason to
suspect somebody being a spy because let
me ask you this if it's your job to talk
to somebody you know in another
organization or country and you talk to
them a lot would that be an example of
doing your job well would it be an
example of not doing your job or would
it be an example of being a Russian
asset I'm pretty sure that if you talk a
little bit more than normal to the
person who it's your job to talk to and
wouldn't it be
if you had more communication not less
that's more of an indication of doing a
good job do you remember I told you
about the new CEO move when Pence and
Trump were first elected but not yet
sworn in there was a few months there
and Trump already started to bring jobs
back he wasn't even on the job it was
the new CEO move where he went - I guess
Ford and carrier tried to talk him into
keeping jobs I don't know how successful
it was but it left the left the
impression that Trump and pence were
jobs jobs jobs we're gonna give you jobs
even before work or on the job I'm not
even gonna take a paycheck and I'm I'm
gonna be so fast on this job stuff I'm
all over it with the jobs so if you
watch Flynn doing exactly the same thing
that I praised at the time as somebody
doing the job before the job even starts
yesterday on last night in periscope
somebody was asking me about how to do a
job interview I didn't give you this
advice but it's great advice one way to
get a job is to just do it without
getting paid you know if you're let's
say you're working at your corporate job
and you're doing your regular job but
the job you want is some other job a
better job just start doing it do your
own job and our weekends nights spare
time whatever and just start doing the
other job because you're that you're
gonna be the obvious person to be
promoted into it if you're already doing
it at least a little bit so I have
nothing but the utmost respect for
people who start their job before they
start their job if you ask me who's the
superstar in the administration the one
who waited for inauguration day or the
one who started hard on day one on the
top priority rushes kind of a top
priority right you know it's at the top
three probably for that kind of job and
so if the guy hit the ground running
worked extra hard before he was even
getting a paycheck let's send him to
jail for that that's what happened he
was a guy who did extra work before he
got his paycheck on exactly the right
priority and they almost sent him to
jail for it
unbelievable anyway so I don't know if
we'll ever have enough of a smoking gun
that Obama or Susan Rice or anybody
we're gonna have to you know answer to
it I don't think so I think I think it
will end in murkiness where it is and
then everybody will just retreat to
their side so howard kurtz
who talks about media and fox news and
elsewhere he was talking about the fact
that the the the polls don't move no
matter what happens in the real world
that no matter what Biden does no matter
what Trump does the polls come out and
they're just bouncing around in the same
little narrow level it's as if it's as
if our preferences for voting are
completely now disconnected from the
candidates and he makes a good case
because literally no matter what happens
the poll numbers don't change and
there's some stuff happening here's one
example that Howard Kurtz gives in his
article about something that you would
expect to change the polling but it
didn't and it says he talked about Trump
the quote proudly announcing that he's
taking hydroxychloroquine against the
advice of most medical experts and that
you know he said if that doesn't turn
public opinion then Trump must be
invulnerable now the size sentence
capture what really happened would you
say that a good description of events is
that the president proudly announced
that he's taking hydroxychloroquine
against the advice of most medical
experts number one the word it proudly
is your tip-off from mind-reading did
the president say it proudly did you
pick up proudly did you detect that
because I didn't
I I detected matter-of-factness I
detected him talking in terms of risk
management certainly there was a
political dimension but did you see
proudly see that that's one of those key
words that just says ah whatever follows
and the rest of this sentence can be
safely ignored alright because if you
start out with a mind-reading word it's
like alright i'm i've now connected to
his mind okay yeah i could see some
pride in there about the
hydroxychloroquine okay let us go on oh
no you don't need to go on
once somebody admits there they're
engaged in mind-reading stop reading
there's nothing that follows the word
proudly that could possibly help you but
here's the rest of the sentence these
proudly using it against the advice of
most medical experts now is that a true
statement yes that is a true statement
is against the advice of most medical
experts it is not against the advice of
the president's own doctor the
president's own doctor said yeah if you
if you want it
risk management makes sense go ahead
we're monitoring you so it's not like a
regular person don't you think it was
important to mention that the
president's own doctor was okay with it
do you think it would be important to
notice how many people on the front line
who are medical doctors are using it do
you think it would be important to note
that something like a quarter of all
doctors would and that it's an off-label
use so any off-label use is going to be
seventy five percent of doctors think
it's a bad idea you know that's an
exaggeration but the point is if it's an
off-label use you're not going to get
everybody to agree what would be the
other example of an off-label use where
all the doctors are on the same page
probably not a lot of them might be a
few so here's my and he also
talks about Joe Biden having a
complicated life and oh well this is
something else
so there's another story on CNN I think
it was talking about Tara Reid the
accuser of Joe Biden and it was saying
how she has a complicated life and there
are conflicting accounts that muddle the
efforts to understand Tara Reid's
allegation against Joe Biden in other
words CNN hired two women to research
and write an article the fact that
they're both women is important to the
story because Biden was accused by a
woman and the two women go through Tara
Reid's background trying to paint a
picture that maybe she's not the most
reliable witness so it's basically just
a takedown of a witness real nice
because what about that credibility by
the way you know the the whole all women
should be believed but we believe Joe
Biden this time blah blah I feel like
the way we should be talking about that
is credibility which is different than
main true something it can be credibly
reported and then you find that it's not
true but it was still Preda below found
at the time and I think that with these
these accusations you should say that
the accuser is credible if the accuser
is credible Tara Reid I think is
credible and and then but then you
should also be able to say that if the
accused has a pretty good defense you
can say that's credible too there's
nothing wrong with saying that both the
accuser and the accused have credible
stories only one of them is true at most
they could both not be true but only one
of them is true at most but they could
both be credible and I think you just
you'll leave it there you can be
credible turned out you're wrong but you
could still be credible all right so
here's my larger point it seems to me
that Howard Kurtz and most of the world
is looking at it as still a contest
between two candidates but I think it's
ceased being a contest between two
candidates some time ago instead it
became a contest between the the news
media versus the other news media and so
I would propose this the reason that no
matter what the candidates do doesn't
move the polling what howard kurtz the
way he described that is that people
have just go onto their team and it
doesn't matter what their team goes
wrong they're just gonna be on their
team so there's lots of evidence for
that so i'd say that the howard kurtz
interpretation is a credible one meaning
that it does look like it's just team
play in politics and and we are ignoring
the flaws of our preferred candidate to
emphasize the flaws of the other ones
and that's all that's happening maybe
maybe that's all that's happening I
would like to give this a different spin
the reason that things don't move
because the candidate no matter what the
candidates do is that the other side
never hears it it doesn't matter what
Joe Biden does if his team isn't aware
of it right that they just don't see the
same reporting as the other side so I
would argue that we're not we're no
longer in a system in which you have
something like democracy and something
like the candidates making their best
case and then the public listening to
the candidates and then the public
making a decision based on the
candidates that's probably what it used
to be but today this is absolutely
nothing but a massive brainwashing
operation and you've got two massive
brainwashing entities competing so
you've got the the left main stream
media CNN MSNBC who are doing this
massive brainwashing operation if they
succeed it literally doesn't matter to
the candidate this do I need to prove
that it doesn't matter who the candidate
is because the candidate is Joe Biden do
I need anymore
no evidence that it doesn't matter who
the candidate is that's pretty
conclusive isn't it do you need to
there's no questions left if Joe Biden
as the candidate is good enough then
it's not about the candidate we are not
in a world where the candidate matters
think about that we drifted into a world
where the actual quality of the
candidate is not a variable because it's
not it's not you could replace either
candidate with anybody and their poll
numbers would be frickin identical
anybody now you've got the two most
different weird candidates in the world
I mean we've never seen anything like
this there's nothing like Trump we've
never seen anything like that but
there's also nothing like Biden somebody
decomposing in their own basement on the
edge of death who's leading in the polls
to be the next president of the United
States there's no way this has to do
with the candidates anymore
we've completely left that world it is
just the you know the persuasive power
of the right entities and the persuasive
power of the left-leaning entities and
that's the battle the actual candidate
you can substitute them and it wouldn't
matter now of course because we only
talk about the candidates and their
opinions and their personalities and
stuff it seems the opposite but that's
the magic trick to boost bolster my my
speculation here's an example so Frank
Bruni brunei writing for the New York
Times says this and look out direct this
is to my point
so Frank Bruni says please tell me why I
should care whether Joe Biden is
declining mentally what let me read that
first sentence again please tell me why
I should care whether Joe Biden is
declining mentally when President Trump
bought him down morally long ago he goes
I'm serious
I'd rather drink milk past its
expiration date
than arsenic so here's a Biden supporter
who's saying directly and in public that
he's supporting something somebody with
declining mental ability and that he's
happy about it
meaning that he prefers it over the
alternative because here's the
alternative that Donald Trump bought him
down morally long ago now suppose that
was true what if that was true let's say
it was true that his interpretation that
Trump bottomed out morally long ago
wouldn't that indicate that we would see
the the impact of that morally bottoming
out by now in other words would your
taxes be higher because Trump allegedly
bottomed out morally a long time ago
remember he's saying that what happened
a long time ago so if there are impacts
from all this morally bottoming out we'd
be seeing them now did we did Trump not
close the airport on time from China
because he was a morally challenged no I
think he got that right right did Trump
not cut the regulations that were
limiting us during the crisis did he did
he fail to cut some regulations because
he had morally bottomed out I don't
remember that story I think he just cut
regulations really quickly did did we
not get ventilators on time because the
President had morally bottomed out I
don't remember that story I feel like we
got ventilators and more than we needed
and just go down the line you pick any
topic trade deal taxes you name it the
Supreme Court find me one example where
the events of the world were the
decisions of the president somehow would
correspond to this horrible problem that
he had morally bottomed out what exactly
was that can you give me an example of
that now I get it that you don't like
his person
and his character I get it we've heard
you say that but can you give me an
example of how that how that affected me
you know can I have a choice of somebody
who you know like I can't see into his
soul so I don't know if there's anything
dark in his inner soul in his mind but I
like low taxes
I like being tough with China you know
give me an example of where where things
went wrong so the fact that Frank Bruni
Bruni Rudy I wish I could pronounce his
name so I apologize if I'm saying wrong
the fact that he would say out loud that
he would pick a somebody in a declining
mental state in his own words declining
mentally and he says why should he care
holy cow
but he goes on so as soon as more of
this Frank to Brunei stuff let's say
that oh and you're saying that Trump has
bottomed down
morally and here's an example so so
here's how you know that's a big problem
the Trump bought him that morally so
listen to this he's the example is that
that Trump said recently that Biden
quote has absolutely no idea what's
happening Trump also said quote he
doesn't know he's alive so Trump is
questioning the mental ability of Joe
Biden and that's an example of Trump's
low moral standards in the same article
the very first sentence the author of
the article Frank Bruni question did Joe
Biden's mental ability I'm not even
making this up
I mean I'm reading it to you right here
so the statement is that anybody who had
questioned Joe Biden's mental acuity is
being morally low and the author does
that in his first sentence
questions Joe Biden's mental acuity in
the first sentence and that that's his
best example of what's wrong with Trump
is the thing he did it in his first
sentence now if you're telling me that
these people have a great awareness of
their own actions I would say maybe not
I'm being told in the comments that the
pronunciation is bruni I hope that's
right and then Frank Bruni goes on to
talk about Biden and he says quote
besides the precise agility of his mind
has nothing nothing to do with the
fundamental decency of his values at the
end of the day and by the way anybody
who says at the end of the day they
should no longer be writers you should
be you should have to be you should have
to change professions if you ever use
this this sentence in public writing at
the end of the day that's your writers
tip of the day the the most hacked
writing in the world uses the phrase at
the end of the day I mean really you
couldn't find another way to express
that all right at the end of the day
Biden can be trusted to do what Trump
didn't and won't quote meaning the stock
his administration with qualified
professionals now is that true is that
true do you think that Trump has not
stalked his administration with
qualified professionals I would say he's
got I would say Steve minuchin is a
superstar I would say that all of the
departments seem to be doing their jobs
for the most part I got some questions
about the FDA I would say that I would
say that
Pompeyo is great I would say that I
think you could name a whole bunch of
people who were actually really really
good
couldn't you I would put Jared on the
list as being a superstar I don't know
I've got a feeling that you could pick
apart any administration and you could
find a number of
political hires aren't they're always
political hires it's sort of built into
the process I don't know the Trump is
doing any better or worse in terms of
staffing that's just an opinion well
what would be your yeah well Perdue okay
so there yeah so I'm not gonna argue
that the Trump administration had all
superstars but is it really different I
mean could you really do you think you
could objectively look at the the people
that Trump has hired and cycled through
and fired and rehired do you think that
you could really put any any
administration up against any other and
that one would look like the
incompetently staffed one I feel like no
I feel like they would all look like
here's my guess I feel like every
administration is probably 70% effective
people and maybe 30% political you know
I had to return a favor but that's also
how you get elected if you haven't taken
some political favors you probably
didn't get elected so we sort of also we
all just sort of wince and say yeah I
hate that part but they all do it it's
how they got elected it's fairly
transparent you know when a when a big
donor becomes a cabinet head yeah Peter
Navarro I'd say he's a star make a good
example so I don't know that this claim
holds up it would be interesting if
there was any I don't know if there's
any way to actually prove it but it all
comes down to a very subjective
statement that you know some group of
people are less talented than others we
don't know that that's completely
unknowable if you're not there you know
you don't really know so and this really
sums it up all right so my hypothesis is
the candidates have stopped mattering
and it's just a brainwash competition
between the the left media and the right
media
and I will put a bow on that point by
talking about date Oliver Darcy he's
with CNN so Oliver Darcy is tweeting
about the fact that the Fox News hosts
had a variety of opinion on the
president taking hydroxychloroquine
which we know to be true so it's a true
fact that the Fox News hosts have talked
about it differently
I'm ambiguous Lee they've talked about
it differently but they've also had
experts on who also talked about it
differently so Darcy writes us Fox can't
get its story straight wot can't get its
story straight what's that mean did I
just describe a network thick quote
can't get its story straight what does
that mean should there be one story
why can't Neil Cavuto have a different
opinion than Laura Ingraham is that not
allowed why couldn't Tucker have a
different opinion than somebody on the
five if he does don't know if he does
why can't they do that and the fact that
a CNN person would start with the very
first sentence Fox can't get its story
straight doesn't that indicate that if
you work at CNN wait for it yes
somebody's already had of me wait for it
isn't he telling us fairly directly that
at CNN they have to get their story
straight what does that be yeah what
does it mean to get your story straight
well the context he's offering is that
everybody says the same thing I believe
he's admitting in public that Fox has a
diversity of opinions and CNN does not
present a diversity of opinions
apparently by choice he's saying it
directly easy if you use the the phrase
get your stories straight
as a criticism of the competing Network
how do you not interpret that as CNN
works hard to get their story straight
and again since the story is opinion you
know whether you should or should not
you know say something or do something
with ID rocks chloroquine it's really
opinion story given that the experts
have different opinions and we know that
should you get your opinions straight I
think see that just admitted that
they're not even in the business of news
and that seems like a pretty direct
admission so that's fascinating all
right yeah all right let me see if
there's anything else to talk about here
fill the kirpan keer p.m. and that's an
interesting string of tweets and he's
talking about the fact that the the
elderly are still the main people dying
so even today on May 20th we've known
now for how many months have we known
that age is the biggest risk factor
we've known that since correct me
January have we known since January that
this virus really attacks the the
elderly like super super hard we've
known that right how long have we been
talking about the strategy of super
protecting the elderly and then letting
the younger people take more of a risk
we've been talking about that for months
and yet today the elderly the very group
that we've identified and everybody
agrees there's no no conversation on
this everyone agrees these are the most
dangerous at risk group and we're not
protecting them now I have to think that
people are doing a lot of stuff there
must be a lot of activity going on to
try to protect them but we're failing
can you believe that
after three months of knowing exactly
who's at risk exactly I mean you could
you could list unless a guy here's 185
years old you're at risk we know who's
at risk at the highest risk and we're
still not protecting that what's up with
that is it is there something about the
nature of the virus there's just too
hard
maybe there's maybe you can try as hard
as you can and you just can't get it
done but today still still they're dying
at the at the Wraith are dying do you
know what the right do you know what the
correct rate of death from coronavirus
should be for anybody over 80 if you're
over 80 what should be your death rate
from coronavirus in the United States
0-0 that's what it should be if there's
an 85 year old who's having any contact
with somebody who could have also had
contact with the coronavirus aren't we
doing it wrong isn't there some way you
can make sure that they don't have any
contact with the virus there's got to be
a way to do that clearly we're not
getting it done
all right so that's the that's the bad
news
but we don't like to end on bad news do
we we do not so recapping the good news
here it is you want to you're really
good news I'm gonna give you some real
direct reliable good news yesterday I
talked to the the most successful real
estate broker in my area so it's a
friend in the neighborhood is probably
the top real estate producer in my area
and as of last night I asked what's the
real estate market because I thought to
myself Oh real estate is gonna get
killed right don't you assume don't you
assume real estate is going to get
killed
goodbye troll
so I asked her what's happening with
real estate sales and guess what strong
as ever this week homes are being sold
for higher than asking price this week
so I've been Northern California just
for reference now in Northern California
you know where I am in the East Bay
outside of San Francisco where we're
sort of a Silicon Valley adjacent so
it's it's a lot of people who didn't
lose their jobs because a lot of you
know technology jobs they just worked at
home so you know I'm in an unusual area
and that we were unusually lightly
affected but could you imagine that
people are paying over the asking price
for homes this week this is not
mind-blowing doesn't that tell you that
the the economy is going to come back
faster of course it is yeah interest
rates are low so that makes a big
difference to somebody says our Beach
condo is on fire in Florida meaning lots
of demand yeah so here's what I expect
look at the stock market did you think
the stock market should be I don't know
what it's doing at the moment let me let
me just take a peek at it so I know if
I'm stock market's up so so it's it's up
sharply did you see that comment did you
see the stock market up sharply and home
prices selling above their asking prices
there's something happening here that's
a big deal now I gotta say I think
there's something about the Trump
administration that even people who
don't like Trump still think he can
goose the economy I feel like even his
haters in there in their secret moments
would say to themselves I hate
everything about this president but if
I'm being honest privately if I had to
pick one person in the history of
civilization
to be the president during this exact
situation meaning that somebody needs to
get the economy going
honestly I can't think of a better
choice you know and and you know I'm not
just cheerleading for the president
because I've also wasn't vicious in my
criticisms of the early crisis task
forces the reporting on them and a lot
of stuff about that so I've been vicious
about his communication his empathy etc
early on so I'm not just you know giving
him a free pass here but honestly he is
exactly the right person for this next
phase exactly and I say this all the
time and I believe I'm the only person
in civilization who holds this opinion
there's no such thing as a good
president that's my opinion there's no
such thing as a good president there is
only a lucky coincidence
between the the problems and the
situations of the time and the right
personality you know with the right
skill set you can have exactly the right
president for exactly the right problem
and we have that right now we did not
have exactly the right president for
exactly the right problem when it was
empathy and you're sort of caring for
the psychology of the country and saying
things that made you feel safe about you
know the medical situation and talking
about them and the most clinical ways as
opposed to getting people all worked up
about some drug that hasn't passed
enough tests so Trump was not the right
fit for that well man is he the right
fit for this next part don't you see it
this is this just me being crazy because
I feel like you couldn't pick a better
person for this by the way I just saw
Bloomberg's name go by in the comments I
only recently learned that Stacey Abrams
is working for some organization that's
funded by Bloomberg so is Stacey Abrams
Mike Bloomberg's play to run the country
because proves
you know a lot of politicians have at
least one billionaire that's sort of
their friend if you know what I mean
so his Stacey Abrams just a Mike
Bloomberg cutout and he is actually
still running for president but he's
going to do it by trying to get Stacey
Abrams as the vice president and then
Biden would be you know sort of less
important that's what it looks like
right it looks like a Mike Bloomberg
play to run the country that's my take
on it anyway I think the economy is
going to do great in 2021 and Beyond and
the golden age is coming we're gonna
have our generation for nuclear energy
you've got a OC saying that the green
new deal doesn't even have a price tag
rather it's a set of shared values do
you know what value I share with a OC
same ones you do turns out yeah I would
like cheap clean energy with no risk of
the planet overheating I don't know how
big the risk is but I'd like that to be
zero and I'd like to do it with
generation four nuclear and smarter
technology so maybe we're not so far
apart at all and maybe the Golden Age
starts now I'll talk to you tonight
