Episode 1365 Scott Adams: CNN Tries to Cancel its Own Pundit, Bill Gates a Free Man, Herd Immunity

Hey, everybody. Start streaming in now. Come on in. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. Will it be the best part of your day? I think it will. I think it will. You can hold me to that. And if you'd like to make it extra, extra special, like super special, and I'm talking extreme, well, then all you need is a cup or a Margaret glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's going to make everything better. It's called the simultaneous hit, but it happens now. Go. Mmm. Yeah. Well, I know everybody laughed when I said the golden age was coming, and I have to admit, the pandemic definitely threw me off my game. But it seems that without the pandemic, we could not have reached the golden age. Think about it. What did the pandemic solve for us? Of course, tragedy like crazy. Lots of deaths, not minimizing any of the pain. But we kind of had to have a pandemic to get to the other side so that the golden age could happen. For example, I think it will redo education totally. It will redo commuting totally. It will redo what work is totally. It'll probably change family units. I mean, just about everything's going to be changed. But also, we're much better prepared for a future pandemic which is really big. And it could be that some of these technologies, the MRNA platform, might be even a solution for cancer. So, you know, just as nobody would ask for a world war, the fact is, when you have big wars, you end up, you know, inventing radar and inventing, you know, nuclear power accidentally and all that. So nobody wanted a pandemic, but here we are. And my job is to look at the news and tell you, you know, whether it's true or what to think about it, or at least a different way to think about it. And there's no news. The news just stopped because news is usually bad news, right? And is it my imagination? But is everything looking solved except the debt? And I'm not even sure if the debt's a problem, because it's all confusing. So. So let's talk about all the things which are not the biggest problems in the world. Things are looking pretty darn good. Stock market's up, economy's recovering. Pandemic is. I feel like we've got the leash on the pandemic. Now. But here are the things that qualify as news. During the pandemic, during the golden age, Bill and Melinda Gates announced they're getting divorced after 27 years. Now, this would be a big surprise to anyone who did not watch the Netflix documentary about Bill Gates. If you watch the Netflix documentary, you'll see interviews with Melinda and Bill separately. And I came away from that thinking, I don't think they're getting along. I mean, when I watched the special, I thought to myself, they don't look like they should be married. Because Melinda had a little bit of an attitude about Bill that came across. And I just felt like I was picking up some contempt, like some. Some negativity. Did anybody else see that special? Because I. I came away from it thinking, why is he married to her? She seems terrible to him. And she was doing it publicly. So I thought, oh, I feel like insulting your spouse on television in a documentary might be telling us there's some problems here. But Bill Gates is a free man now, and based on what I saw in that documentary, he's going to be a lot happier. Like, a lot happier. So congratulations to Bill Gates for, you know, pulling the cord. I think he needed to do that. Now, there's a story about their meeting that tells you everything about couples. Are you ready for this? So this is apparently an anecdote of how they met. So they met at work, and then Bill Gates saw Melinda later in the parking lot and asked her on a date two weeks out. Now, who asked somebody on a date two weeks out? It was a little bit too prepared or a little bit too planned. And I guess Melinda told him, two weeks from tonight. I have no idea what I'm doing two weeks from tonight. Okay, first of all, that's when he should have walked away. If you try to make a date with somebody in two weeks, and their excuse for saying no is they don't know what they're going to be doing in two weeks, walk away. So anyway, and then Melinda said, quote, you're not spontaneous enough for me. Melinda said, and then she said, he called an hour later and said, is this spontaneous enough for you? And then asked her out, and they went on a date and got married. Now, this is everything you need to know about men and women as a couple. I don't think I'm speaking about anything too personal. When I say I have been accused of not being spontaneous, I sometimes come off as being calculating. I often will think about the impact of my actions and how that might affect my future. In fact, I can't really turn it off. I'm always thinking, if this happens, what will be the outcome? Also known as the normal way a brain operates. So when women require us men to be spontaneous, do you know what men say to that? That's not a thing. That's right. One of the main things. It's not the main thing, but one of the main things a woman wants from a man is, is a thing that doesn't even exist. Spontaneity. That's not a thing. If you're a man, have you ever spontaneously had sex? Well, somebody probably thought you did. It's not spontaneous if you're looking for it all the time and then sometimes you get it. That's the opposite of spontaneous. Would you say that if you were hunting for mushrooms in the forest and then you found a mushroom that you were hunting for, was it spontaneous finding of a mushroom? No, it's the opposite. If you planned to go look for mushrooms, you didn't know exactly when you'd find it, but there it was. It's like that with sex for men. We're always looking for it. It never turns off. When we get it, sometimes the woman will say, well, that was some spontaneous sex we had there. I sure enjoyed that. Spontaneous sex. And the man is thinking, spontaneous. I've been trying to make this happen for a week. Spontaneous. So no matter how rich you are, you have the same damn problems. All right. Rasmussen, in a new poll, I don't know if you can see it yet, but you'll be able to see it soon, said that this question, among others, should vaccinated people wear masks in public? Are you surprised the Republicans said yes to masks in public by only 25%? What if I told you about 25% every poll doesn't matter what the question is, 25% of the people answer are just going to be fucked up. It doesn't matter what the question is. It doesn't matter if they're Democrats, Republicans, it doesn't matter. 25% of everybody you poll will just have a fucked up response that you can't explain. It's like, well, you can ask people, would you like to be beaten to death with a hammer? 25% of people responding would say, yeah, I think, I wouldn't mind that. I think I like to be beaten to death with a hammer. I can't explain it. It's just 25%, no matter what the poll is. But Democrats 75% said that vaccinated people should wear masks in public. Is that based on science? Which One is following the science. The GOP who says the risks are very small, or the Democrats, who also say the risk is very small, but you should do something about the risk. Which one's following the science? It's opposites. They're both following the science. Right. That's the fucking problem. I'm sorry. I was worried too much. Everybody who says follow the science. Here is my response to everyone in the world who says you should follow the science. And my response goes like this. Follow the science. Oh, you follow the science because it's just stupid people can't follow the science. It's not a thing. It's like spontaneous sex. You think it's a thing, but it's not. It's not that you can do it or you could not do it. It's not like some people do it and some people don't do it. That's the frame we've been given. There's nothing like that. It's a bunch of people, 100% of them, who are incapable of following the science. All human beings, 100% of us, are incapable of following science because we don't know what it is. Perfect example, is the science telling you to wear a mask after you're vaccinated a little bit. Is it telling you not to wear a mask because you're vaccinated? A little bit. So what do you do? You default to what, CNN or Fox News or wherever you're following whatever they told you, basically. So there's no illusion here of anybody following any science. The questions like this just line up exactly by political affiliation. Nobody is looking at science if you just coincidentally happen to line up exactly by political affiliation. Except for the 25% who are whack. All right, if you've been wondering how to deal with this big lie question, now just background the. The phrase the big lie is what CNN and the left are trying to brand Trump's accusation that the election was not fair and equitable. Now, they started out by saying it's a big lie to say the election was not fair. Trump did a Trump on them today. He decided to define the big lie as the opposite. So Trump has told us now that he will be considering the phrase the big lie to refer to the fact that the election was fair. Is he going to get away with it? Totally, totally, totally going to get away with it. Does it sound like anything familiar? Yeah, he used the same play before. Perfectly. Do you remember when the left tried to brand Trump and the right with fake news? Remember what happened to fake news? Trump Took the weapon out of their hand, turned it around, and used fake news to just destroy the entire industry. Trump, and mostly just Trump. The rest of us being, you know, follower honors. But Trump destroyed the entire news industry by, you know, branding of fake news. And then there were so many examples that it just became true. It was always true, but in our minds, it became true. So I think he's going to pull this off. I think Trump will actually, at least, you know, of course, only for the Republicans, not for the Democrats. I think he's going to turn the big lie into a whole different meaning. And it's fun to watch just to see if he can get away with it. But here is my argument. Well, if you can call it that, or funnel. When I encounter people online or other place who say to me, scott, we know for sure that the election was fair, and anybody who says otherwise is part of the big lie. Let me tell you the technique I use to essentially change their mind in real time, which is rare. Have I ever told you that you really can't change people's minds? It's so rare. In this case, you don't actually change their mind, but you can get to the point where they'll stop talking, meaning that they'll just sort of slink away. That's as close as you can get. Now, after they slink away, knowing that you've destroyed their thinking, it'll just resurrect after they're away from you a while. They just need a few hours of recharging to get back their fake news bubble. But here's. Here's what causes them that pain. So the first thing somebody says, it's a big lie that the election had any widespread fraud. It's a big lie. Big lie, I say. To which I say, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something didn't happen. And then people will say, well, but none of the courts found it. And then I say, the courts weren't looking for it. The courts were addressing specific questions. But nobody had visibility on the whole process. Nobody audited the code of the machines. Nobody did a thorough audit from beginning to end. So then I say, you can't say that the evidence doesn't exist if you didn't look for it. Now, so far, I'm only saying things that people will have to accept are true. Number one, they will accept that you can't prove a negative, even though there's some exceptions, but basically, you can't prove it negative. They will accept that. They will accept that not Looking for something is different from looking forward and not finding it. Nobody looked for it. That's why there's an Arizona audit, because it wasn't looked for. You don't do an audit if you already did an audit. So the first, the next thing you convince them of is that nobody looked at it. And the courts are not even designed to look for it. The courts will rule about whether they'll rule on it. And they might rule on some specific issues which nobody's pushing as true at this point. Well, some people might. Then you go to the high ground and here's the kill shot, right? If I told you the high ground maneuver in terms of persuasion, the high ground maneuver is where you take the argument to a higher level where nobody can disagree with the next thing you say. Now, it's hard to find those situations, but when you find them, it's the end of the argument. If you get somebody to the high ground, it's over. Here's the high ground. Every system that can be hacked will be hacked under these conditions. There are lots of people involved. So you know that there are always some bad people in there. If only one person was involved in whatever the thing is you're talking about. Well, maybe you got a saint, right? Lucky we got the one honest person. But when lots of people are involved, you can guarantee that some of them are going to do some bad stuff. Secondly, if there's a high payoff either in money or power, in the case of an election, you have all the incentive in the world. You've got people who would do bad things in the system and in the right place under those conditions, you will get fraud 100% of the time every time. There's no system that would, that would be invulnerable to that. So the only thing you don't know is whether it's happened already. That's the high ground. The high ground is every system gets hacked. If there are lots of people involved and it's possible, is it possible to hack an election? Of course, it may not be possible to do it and get away with it forever. That might not be possible, but it's certainly possible to do it. We just don't know all the ways it could be done, etc. Now, one way to do it would be to get to insiders, meaning that somebody who works in, I don't know, electronic voting machine company or something like that. And we would have no way to know if any of that had ever happened. But it is true that we do not have evidence of It. But you can't prove a negative. So here's the, here's the thing. You say nobody looked for the evidence because courts are not set up to do that. And the audits were only limited. So there's. There's no visibility on the whole election. And then you take them to the high ground and say, whenever this is the case, you don't have full visibility. You get a lot of people involved. There's a lot to gain. It will be compromised by intelligence agencies eventually. So that's the part you might want to add by intelligence agencies, maybe the CIA, maybe Russia, maybe China. But sooner or later, they'll. One of them will get a. Get control of the voting system. We just don't know if it's happened yet. All right, Apparently, China has a rocket that has a component that's, that's just going to fall to Earth wherever it falls. That's kind of scary, isn't it? There's just this big old rocket in space, and it's going to eventually degrade its orbit and just fall wherever it falls. So got that hanging over our heads, literally. Is it my imagination or is the Biden administration actually getting a handle on the border? It looks like they are. I think the number of, you know, kids being confined at the border is down, I don't know, 84 or something. But it looks like the Biden administration is making some progress getting that under control. I don't know if we have good reporting on this situation, though, because I'm a little, a little confused as to how they could ever be making progress when everything they're doing seems to look like it would encourage more people to come, not fewer. And it's also exactly the season when they should be coming. So I feel like maybe the reporting is lagging here. Does it feel like you're getting good reports from the border? Because I don't know how it could be getting better, but the reporting says it is. I'm a little skeptical about the reporting. CNN reports that the White House is discussing a new plan to expand domestic warrantless surveillance of Americans by paying private companies to infiltrate and report on private social media groups. I think I saw this in a tweet from Snowden, and I'm saying to myself, is this new? I don't even know if this is new. Haven't. Haven't we always infiltrated extremist groups? So, I mean, it sounds scary, but it sounds like just what we've always done. I don't even know if it's new. I got a Question for you on herd immunity. If we had a normal virus, herd immunity would be in that 70% people have to be either have a natural immunity or vaccination. But given that these super spreaders are all going to be the super sick people and we know that they're not children, we know that they're either over 70 or they're obese. Do we reach herd immunity effectively just by vaccinating the obese and the people over 70? Because here's a question I've been arguing with on Twitter, I believe, but I think this is short of being dead confirmed, I believe it's true that the sicker you are, the more likely you're a super spreader. You have to have a lot of virus in your body in order to give it off when you breathe. If you have to be pretty sick to be a super spreader and we vaccinated all the over 70s and the obese people, you would basically have taken all of the super spreaders out of the mix and then all you would have is sort of a regular spreader. I feel as if we're going to hit herd immunity faster than we think because we're intelligently vaccinating. Not only that, but the virus itself is, I hate to say intelligently, but it's targeting the group of super spreaders. So once they've either had it or been vaccinated, I think we just take pretty much all the super spreaders off the field. And I got a feeling that we're going to get over this better than we think. Now, the wild card, as you know, is the variants. There's a scary variant in India, there are scary variants in Europe. And so far we're thinking that the vaccination should work against the variants. But the variants might attack younger people and that might put a dent in my, in my herd immunity concept that if you get the, if you get the people who would get sickest, take them off the field, no super spreaders. So that's just my non doctor hypothesis. I would love to see somebody who actually knows what they're talking about give an opinion on that. All right, here's some fake news update. Apparently this was a big one. New York Times, Washington Post, NBC and others, they all reported this story that turned out to be false. They said that Rudy Giuliani was warned by the FBI, he was a target of some Russian disinformation campaign. Apparently didn't happen. Now, they all had anonymous sources and they all confirmed it independently. What do you think was the anonymous source? For each of these media outlets. Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it might have been the other media outlets and they just didn't want to say it. So they just say anonymous source. Well, we saw it in the New York Times. Why don't we just tell people it was an anonymous source? Because if they guess right, it works. If it turns out the story is true, there's an actual anonymous source that's a real person with a real story, well, then you get away with it. It's only if you guess wrong. And you said, oh, yeah, we totally confirmed it. And then it turns out to be false. How exactly did they confirm it? How do all these major news outlets confirm something that never happened? So they're either talking to the same spook, which is one theory I've seen that there's, you know, some CIA person or somebody else, you know, some, some deep, dark person is giving all of these outlets the same fake news as an anonymous source or gave it to one outlet. And then the other outlets said, well, we'll just use this first outlet as our anonymous source. I think that's what's going on. But I don't know. That's pretty ugly. Are you watching Tucker Carlson go after Frank Luntz, pollster on, on his show? How many of you are watching that? And now I'm seeing looks like Fox News has picked it up on their website. And I guess the accusation goes like this, that Frank Lutz gives advice to both Democrats and, and Republicans, but also to big corporations that, you know, may not love Republicans. And apparently he's good friends with Kevin McCarthy, minority leader Republican, and actually rents one of Frank Luntz's properties. So he actually is staying at a Lun's property. We don't know if he's paying a market rent. There's no, no evidence that he's not. So we don't have anything that looks like anything illegal or improper. But there is a kind of connection here that Tucker Carlson is calling out and he's wondering why the Republicans allow Frank Luntz to have so much impact on Republican opinion when he might be leaning more left. Seems like maybe, yes. Now I don't have an opinion on Frank Luntz's political opinions. My observation of him is that he seems to be, you know, he seems to at least try to talk in a way that's free of bias. Nobody's free of bias on the inside. But when I see him talk, I'm going to say, I don't See him talk in a biased way, like he's obviously just selling a narrative. He does seem like he's just talking about the poll results, but when it comes to giving advice, you know, we don't see that part. So who knows how much impact he has? But why, why is this a story now? What is the trigger for this? Do you know? Does anybody know why is the trigger for this? Why is Tucker going after him so hard? Somebody says that Frank Luntz hated Trump. Yeah, but, you know, some Republicans did, too. You know, he didn't really. When I saw Frank Luntz in public, I did not see here see him say anti Trump stuff. I don't know what he thought about otherwise. So it's an interesting question. Can somebody who is a pollster whose job is just data, can they work for people on the left and the right and the corporations that are. That are probably controlling them both? Can they, can they do that? I don't know. It's a good question. You know, I think that Tucker's doing a. A solid service by making sure that we know about this so we're at least informed. But once we're informed, does that mean it should stop? I feel like it needs transparency, but I don't know that you should tell somebody who's a data person that they can't sell data to anybody they want or even advice. So I certainly wouldn't want him to be, like, locked down of being able to give advice to anybody he wants. But Tucker is certainly onto something when he says we should at least know what the situation is. You should at least be aware. So good work there by Tucker for making us aware. So here's a big story that you won't see in the news because it's about the news. It seems to me that the health risk from watching CNN is so real now that you have to actually take it seriously. I think the health risk of the fake news getting you all worked up about, you know, how many people are worried that climate change will make the earth uninhabitable. Imagine waking up and believing that the earth will be uninhabitable. I mean, that would be pretty bad for your mental health. But also imagine any of the other stuff that's on CNN and believing it, you would be in this continuous panic. So I think all the people who are watching the panic porn on the fake news have a real legitimate health problem in terms of anxiety, mental health, et cetera. But who would report on that? Not cnn, because the people whose job it would be to report on this. They can't put themselves out of business by reporting that they're bad for your health. So it's a weird story that's really, really important. In my, in my opinion, it's really important because this is a real health problem and a major one probably affects 100 million people. Is that too much? Tens of millions. This is a big, big problem. But by its nature, it just can't get reported, so we won't treat it that way. So that's a problem. Joe Biden is finding out that it's a good thing to be a serial gaffer because when you make a new gaffe, people are just used to it. So it doesn't seem like it. It doesn't seem like a problem. So his latest one is he said anybody making less than $400,000 a year will not pay a single penny in taxes. Of course, what he meant is that they would not pay any extra taxes with the tax increase. But instead he said they won't pay a single penny. Now, does that mean he has Alzheimer's now? It's just more. It's more him. So I don't think that shows his decline, but it does show he's Joe Biden. Still, one of the funniest stories is watching CNN hire Republicans as pundits so that they can say, well, at least we had one Republican on there. And then canceling them for being Republican. It happened to Steve Cortez, so he had a contract with CNN to be their Republican pundit, I guess, but he got frozen out because he kept being too good at it. That's literally true. Steve Cortez lost his job on CNN by being he was too good at it. You know, he was debunking the fine people hoax on their network, which was true and useful and important. They couldn't handle it. They got rid of them. So now we're seeing Rick Santorum is now in the crosshairs. He also, I don't know if he still is, but was on the payroll as their pundit. And he made the mistake of. In a speech recently, he I'm paraphrasing, so this won't be exactly it, but paraphrasing. He said that the Constitution and our country was formed primarily with Anglo Saxon influence and not much in terms of the Native Americans. But historians and people on the left got quite angered by that. And they said, read your history, Rick Santorum, because if you did, you would learn that the framers of our Constitution did in fact look at the Iroquois Nation to get Some ideas about how to build our country. How many of you knew that? Did anybody, any of you know that? The framers of the Constitution looked at the Native American, you know, the five nations and how they. They had a federalist system. So I may have learned this when I was a kid. I didn't remember it, so I just learned. Was refreshing my memory of it. But here's my question. So just to be specific, so the Iroquois were made up of five nations. Maybe you could call them tribes, but they call them nations. So five nations, but the individual nations were like states in the sense that they would make their own rules and they would manage their own little nation. But there was still a federal, if you could call it that, a higher authority that was a hereditary leader. Now, if we're building a democracy, I don't think you can say we borrowed from a dictatorship to build our system. But that's what people are saying. So if you've got one leader and it's a hereditary leader, feels sort of dictatorship to me, but just in the specific sense of letting the individual nation states have their own laws as long as they didn't violate whatever the top. The top law was. Some are saying this was the model for the states having lots of control in a federalist system. Now, here's my question to you. Are there any systems that are different? Because I'm not well informed, so I can't answer this question myself. It sounded like it was. It sounded like I knew the answer when I asked the question, but I don't. So here's the question. In China, does China have a system in which locally people have their own control? But of course, if anything violated what the federal government wanted, the federal government would win. Was there any, any place that was different? Because it seems to me that the Iroquois nation was maybe not influenced by any other country because they didn't have contact. But it feels like everybody just comes up with the same idea, don't they? Can you give me an example of a large, large has to be large country in which there was no local control and local laws that differed among the local groups. Is there any example of that? Because I feel as if this example we just accepted, like, oh, here's a good example. We borrowed that federal system from the Iroquois. To which I say, but everybody who sits down to invent a system comes up with the same one, don't they? So that's what I need to fact check on. Was there any system at the time when, when the framing was done? Was there any system in the world because they looked at other governments before they made their decisions. Was there any system in which they didn't have local laws in addition to a federal. I don't know, somebody saying China and the Soviet Union. But even they have local. Local government. I think they all have local government. So I reject this. This explanation that we are influenced by nativists. The way you do it. I mean, I just think it's the obvious way to do it anyway. We'll never hear an answer to that. What was hilarious, though, is watching Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo when they do the changeover from one show to the other, they do some banter on screen, which is really good, by the way. One of the things that CNN does well is that handoff from one show to the next where they do a little banter before the other one takes over. If you like CNN's programming, that's a really good technique. It's engaging every time. But anyway, Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo were arguing with each other like a married couple over this Rick Santorum thing. And when I say married, like arguing like a married couple, it goes like this, hey, Chris Cuomo, what did you think of this? I think it was bad, and Chris Cuomo agrees. And then Don Lemon gets mad at him because Chris Cuomo also made another point. So then Don Lemon gets mad at him for not agreeing with him, in which he already completely agreed, but he also made another point, which is just true, which feels like not agreeing, because that's a different point. So why can't you just say I'm right and go away? You know? So basically, the two of them were in complete agreement, as far as I could tell. But they thought they were arguing, or at least Don Lemon did. He thought he was arguing, but there was no disagreement, and he acted like he was still arguing. And that Chris Cuomo was like the. Like the bitch here, and he was the one who'd done something wrong. And I think Cuomo was just, you know, I'm watching this. I'm thinking. I think Cuomo is thinking, am I not agreeing with 100% of what you're saying? Why do you have that arguing voice on? Yeah, Very, very much like a typical marriage. Meanwhile, the GOP is reportedly going full racist there. There's some talk. We don't know that this is confirmed. So this is a little bit speculative, but there's some people talking about replacing Liz Cheney from some leadership areas, because Liz Cheney is anti Trump, blah, blah, blah. And this is. Axios reported this. They said most members recognize Cheney can't be succeeded by a white man, given their top two leaders, that McCarthy and Steve Scalise are white men. So I don't know if this story is true. Now, obviously it's something they have to discuss. Can we have a third white male in leadership? And it's the right question. But here's the thing. It's racist. How can the Republican Party do something that's overtly racist? It feels like that's off brand, isn't it? Feels very off brand. So as someone who has lost a couple of careers for this, this is how I lost my banking career. There were too many white men in management. And so management said, we're going to just stop promoting white men. And they told me that directly. Like, that's not an interpretation. They called me into the office and said, we can't promote you. We don't know when that will ever change because you're a white man. And we have too many of them in management. So I quit, went to the local phone company, got on the management track. I was. I was going to be a, you know, high executive if things went well. And same thing happened. One day they called me and said, we have too many white men in management. People are complaining. So we can't promote you ever, maybe because you're a white male. So I quit that job to become a cartoonist. Once I became a cartoonist, one of the things I did was start a TV show on upn, which on the second season, it got canceled because they had decided to use that night for African American programming. So three careers I lost by either being a white man or having a comic about a white guy. And here it is again. Now, this was years ago, and, you know, you kind of wish that this wasn't still happening, but don't you think there's somebody in Congress who's saying, wait a minute, I thought that was going to be my job. Isn't there somebody who's just being discriminated against? You know, if the. If the third, you know, more powerful person happened to be male and white, I don't know if it is, but this is just racism. I don't know how you can call it anything else. Now, having said that, I also support having a government that looks like, you know, the nature of the people, but you don't have to do it on every hiring decision. You know, it's more like you should recruit better. But I don't know if denying somebody a job that they're. They're the right one for. I don't know if that gets us there. But I do agree we need to have a government that looks like the people. So apparently Biden was going to keep Trump's low number of refugees at 15,000, but he got a lot of pushback on that, and he raised his cap to 62,500 this fiscal year. So that's how many refugees will come in. So that would be on top of immigration. They would be the ones who had some. Some reason to be a refugee. And I think to myself, how do we come up with that number? Are you curious? Why is it 62,500? You couldn't round that off. It couldn't be 60,000 or 65,000 or 70,000, but it's 63,500 because somehow we know that's the right number. There's no right number because helping refugees doesn't really have a limit. Right? Either these are people in desperate problems and you should help as many as you can, or they're not in desperate problems, or it's not your problem and you shouldn't do any. But how do you pick a number? It's just weird. It's like picking a number that you feel will make people leave you alone. That's what it feels like. It's like 15,000 people didn't leave us alone. They said it should be more. Let's try 62,500 and see if people stop complaining. I feel like this is just a stop complaining number because you couldn't. I don't think you could back it up with any economics or the Bible or the Constitution or anything. There's just no objective way to pick this number. So I guess you just pick a number that sounds to the public like you thought about it. It's the best you can do. There was a fascinating question on Twitter today that I would love to see a whole bunch of different variants on. And the question was this. This is from Andrea, just a user on Twitter who ended up getting tens of thousands of retweets on this. And Andrea asked, what happens in your brain when it comes to adding 28 plus 47? And then she says, quote, your process. Let me see how your brain works. This was really interesting because 28 +47 is just complicated. You have to go through a process and watch all the different ways that people approached it. All right, Alex. So, Alex. Marty, you're a fucking asshole. You should just get the fuck off of here, right? Just. Just leave. Don't ever come back. I don't want to see you again. So these are the assholes that just ruined the world. So Alex, or Alex is saying scott is for open borders. Scott is for open borders. No, you. I'm not. I'm the opposite of that. I've said it a million times. Just go fuck yourself and leave. Get out of here. You are not helping anybody. You are just.