Episode 1907 Scott Adams: Political Dirty Tricks, Ye Talks To Lex, Hillary Signals New Scheme, More

Everybody. And welcome to the new and improved Coffee with Scott Adams. What's new? What's improved? I am. I am. Yeah. I got off of a dangerous pharmaceutical drug that was. Felt like it was killing me. Do you know why that drug felt like it was killing me? It was actually literally killing me. Not the drug itself, but it did make me suicidal. That was the drug. Because the moment I was off it, you know, one day off, it weeks and weeks of serious mental difficulty gone. And you might want to ask yourself if you're on any drugs that correspond with a huge change in your mental state. Just asking the question. Now I have to figure out some way to get my blood pressure back down. That's a secondary problem. But I've completely cured my physical and mental problem. That taken me out for months. I mean, I was a basket case for months. It was just a pill. Stop taking it. Well, if you would like to take your experience up a notch to be as happy as I am right now, which is pretty happy, all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tack or Chelsea Canti jug or 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 thing makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Goes. The biggest downside is I can't drink afternoon coffee if I'm not taking my. My blood pressure meds because it just spikes your coffee through the roof. Your blood pressure through the roof. However, because I was not on the drug, I was not tired yesterday, so I didn't need coffee because it was the drug that was making me tired. Well, Biden has another Biden like gaff. Once again, he referred to the vice president as the President. She said, happy birthday to our great president. Now, a lot of people tweeted that video around and said, here's another example of Biden confusing the job title of the vice president. But I'm not so sure that's what happened. Here's what he said. Happy birthday to our great President. I have a suspicion that he didn't just confuse her job title. I think he forgot her name. I think he forgot her name. And the alternative to calling her by her job title, which is what you do if you forget somebody's name. It's like, and I'd like you to meet my boss, whose name I can't remember for some reason. I think that was a cover for not remembering her name. Not sure. I mean, it's actually not that uncommon to refer to people by their job title in that specific situation. But it feels kind of like maybe you didn't know her name for a moment. I don't know. Now, on top of that, also this morning, he did his Biden end of speech thing where he doesn't. He looks like he's lost for a while. And you say, my God, what's wrong with that guy? He always looks lost. He doesn't know where to walk. And then he does the hand thing where he tries to point in one direction to get some. Like he's shaking hands with a ghost. But really he's not doing that. That's just what the Republicans say. He's actually pointing in the direction he plans to walk. And he's just looking for verification that that's the direction he's supposed to be going. But it looks like he's shaking hands with a ghost. Now, do you think that that's Biden's problem? Are those Biden mistakes that he always looks confused when he leaves? That's not. That is not his problem. That is his staff failing him as hard as you can fail. Let me tell you how easy this would be to fix. Now, number one, they're clearly aware that every time he does this, it becomes a viral video, right? Wouldn't you say? Clearly they know that this becomes a meme every time he does it, and that can't be good. How hard would it be to make that stop? The drug I was talking about was A M. It's a beta blocker, blood pressure med. To answer your question. Sorry, I digressed. But here's what the handlers, the staff should have done. Once you realize that Biden doesn't remember which way to go when he's done. And let me. Here's some inside knowledge. When I was doing a lot of public corporate speaking in front of big groups, the organizers always tell you which way to exit. That's always there. If anybody's done any big keynotes, you can verify, right? The keynote address, the speaker is always told always which way to exit. That's just basically part of the job. They tell you how to enter. They'll even tell you if you're going to shake hands with the moderator. So the normal way that you're being managed backstage before you go on would be, all right, you're going to enter from this side after the introduction, and you'll shake hands and then you'll do your thing. When you're done, there'll be some music playing and there'll be some People asking for autographs or whatever. And they'll be on this side, so make sure you exit on this side. And the organizer might give you, like, a little award or something for coming. So make sure you stay there, get the award, and then you'll exit on the left side. Now, that's if you're a keynote speaker and they're paying you a lot of money and they do expect you to remember that stuff. And I would say that most of the time, at least 90 to 95% of the time, I did remember, and I would leave the right direction. Sometimes I didn't. There were some times I went the wrong way, didn't make any difference because I wasn't Biden. So it doesn't mean anything if you're just a normal person. But here's how they could handle Biden. When you hear how easy this is, you're gonna think that they must hate him. Look how easy this is. If you know that he has this confusion. And even if he's been told in advance, he probably still forgets. They just put they. All they do is put handlers on both sides of the stage. That's it. That's the solution. And then whichever way he goes is right. And if he walks the way that they prefer he doesn't go, he walks over to the staff and he talks to them like it was intentional. Then if that's the wrong direction, the staff member says, all right, let's go meet these people before we leave. And then the two of them casually walk over to do something else. You, as the observer, would never know anything was wrong because you wouldn't know he wasn't supposed to go talk to that person before doing the other thing. It would look natural. So when you see how easy it is to make that problem completely go away, just have people on both sides and know that this is a thing. Right? Easy. So what's going on? Are they incompetent or do they hate him? It's kind of a mystery. All right, I want to give you just a little update because it's funny in a Dilbert way. I had a number of major problems with my healthcare provider recently, which I was incapable of working through on my own because, again, the medication I was taking for my blood pressure made me mentally incompetent for a lot of ordinary life tasks, and I was very aware of that. So it was a little hard to work through problems when I wasn't in problem solving mode. It was kind of up to them to do it on their own. And So I said to them directly, you know, when I complained on a couple of different things, I said, I have to tell you, I'm a senior. I was using that excuse, I'm a senior. I need extra help. I can't figure this out on my own. And so they did. Quite reasonably and quite well trained, they said, oh, senior. And then they went in a completely different helpful mode. So that part was great. I love the fact that as soon as I announced myself as not fully capable, they immediately conformed to that model and gave me all the time that I needed. That was very good. However. However, what I asked for now, it wasn't the weed, because I could be as. I could beat you on the sats on any amount of weed. I promise you that I could probably beat almost all of you in the SATs, no matter how high I was. Because that's one thing that happens when you're a chronic user. It doesn't affect you the same way. It's more of a physical thing than a mental thing. Anyway, I sounded like Kanye there for a moment. We'll talk about him. I call him. Yay. So what I was trying to do was just. I turned 65, so I was just signing up for the senior care version of their healthcare, which I believed should be automatic. I believed I should have said, oh, I'm a senior now. Push a button, and basically it just transfers into a new mode and it cost me less. Now, wouldn't you think that's the way it works? But instead it was this. We don't even know how to do it. I was like, what? This must be the most normal thing you do when somebody ages out of your normal program into the 65 and over program. These are both your programs. It's the most common thing you probably deal with, and you don't know how to do it. And they actually said they didn't know how to do it and spent hours and they had to delete one and create another. And then I had to check back and had to make sure I didn't miss a day. It was all this amazing confusion. And I kept saying, I don't believe this is your normal process, because how could you even be in business? And so I escalated. Now, one of the things I'd learned long ago in my corporate world is that you don't complain to the normal complaint people if they can't handle it. I mean, that's the first place you go. But if they can't handle it and they tell you that they won't get Their supervisor, which you always get. Oh, no, I am the one in charge. There is no supervisor. There's nobody you can talk to. That's the typical thing you get these days. Then you hang up and you call the CEO of the company. Now, the CEO doesn't answer the phone, although I've heard cases where they did. Weirdly, a friend of mine once called the CEO of Nordstrom because he had some complaint or suggestion. And the CEO of Nordstrom took the call. The secretary answered it and said, yeah, we'll put you right through. It was. It was just a customer. It was literally just a customer complaint. And the secretary put him right through to the CEO, and the CEO answered the question. And let me tell you, Nordstrom got a lot of free publicity out of that, because I've told that story a thousand times. And that's why they did it. Nordstrom actually had that as a strategy to do such good customer service that you would talk about was brilliant. Really? Many of you heard that. I'll digress for a moment. The famous story, I don't know if it's true, but we heard this in business school, might not have been true, but there's some customer who tried to return tires for his car to Nordstrom and then they took them in the return. Now, that's not the story. The story is that Nordstrom doesn't sell tires and they took some guy's tires as a return and gave him a full refund for the tires that they didn't sell. Now, I don't know if that was true, but we learned that in business school because it was a story about Nordstrom that made you think that, oh, my God, they really will do above and beyond. Now, if that was true, which I doubt, but if that really happened, it was good marketing because it literally became a famous national story. So anyway, back to Kaiser. I told them, I'm pretty sure that you couldn't be in business if you can't do this simple thing that you have to do every day. It's your most basic thing. Then secondly, I asked if they could tell me the price that I'm charged for each of the members that I'm covering. So I had some dependents on there, and I said, well, how much is each of these dependents costing me so I'll know what it would cost someone else to insure them, or I just wanted to know. And they said. And I said, you don't show that anywhere. I can't find it anywhere. I can't ask it. I can't see it online and it's not on the invoice. How much is each person costing me? And so I finally got help from somebody who was the CEO, sent their A team. So when the A team got involved, because the CEO was probably embarrassed at that, my complaints, I said to the guy who was going to solve my complaint, I said, when you look into this, the part about the pricing, I said, you're going to find out something about the company you work for that you're not going to like. And he was like, what? I go, I promise you, when you look into the bottom of this, you're going to find out that the reason that your company doesn't tell me the price is because they don't want me to know. And he's like, no, no, no. Obviously there's a way to tell you the price per person. Of course, wouldn't every one of you think that that's obvious? And how easy would it be for the system to know that? Because the system would know what the total price would be with and without that person, because that's how they set the prices. Who's in, who's out, set the price. So the system could easily say, imagine if this person were not there and then put a price on them. So we know it's easy. And so I said to him, when you look into this, you're going to find out that, like insurance companies like life insurance and house insurance, you will find out that they won't tell you what's covered because they don't want you to know because you could use that information to shop it around. And he didn't believe it. He did not believe that his company does not give you a price per person for the insurance that they sell you. So the other day he called me and said, you know, when you said I was going to find out something I didn't like, he found out. He talked to everybody you could talk to, and they confirmed that their company cannot tell you the price per person covered. Yeah, some kind of weird rule that they have now. They had reasons that didn't sound real, like each department had sort of a constraint or reason or a pushback. But if you put it all together, none of it made sense. The only way any of it makes sense is if they don't want you to know the price. That's the only thing that makes sense. Now. They give you the total price. But I wanted to know the individual costs. Then the part about they couldn't do the basic thing of moving me into the senior Thing, it turns out that this is what they could have done instead of the days of work that they did with me to fix this. What they could have done alternately, is nothing. And it was automatic, exactly like I believed it should have been. It should have been automatic. As soon as I said, I want this, all the systems should have talked to each other, move me from one system up to the other. And that's exactly the way they're designed. After two days of working and deleting things and changing things, the official answer came back. You could have just waited until the new program kicked in and the old one transfers automatically. And the net of it is, I don't even know if I have health insurance today. Literally, I don't know. Because it's possible that whatever they did to fix the thing that didn't need fixing actually broke it. Maybe. I don't know. So that was the most deliberate thing that happened to me this week. So Ivermectin is trending again. And I don't want you to get. Don't want to get you all worked up over the question of whether Ivermectin works. I will just give you this one additional thought that is a new thought, I hope. On top of what you already thought about Ivermectin, whether it worked or didn't, would you agree that the tests that show that Ivermectin does not work do not cover the exact protocols that would be used if you were a customer? Correct. How many of you would agree with that statement, that the things that got tested for Ivermectin were not the. Either the combination or the timing or something about it didn't quite fit what you imagined it should have been used for? Now, here's the question I'm going to add on top of that, if all of these tests used it in a different way, and apparently there are. Would you agree that there are infinite ways you could administer it? So there are infinite dose sizes. And you can even imagine, like, the dose size on day one is different than the last dose. Right? So that gives you infinity of ways that you could have administered it. Would you agree with infinity? It's infinity, right? Because it could have started small and grown, could have started high and get small. Could be a lot, could be little, could start right away, could start as soon as you have a sneeze, could start as soon as you have a cough. It's literally infinity. Is it possible that they could have tested enough that you would feel that they hit the right notes that you would know for sure. Whether it worked or not, given that the options for how to administer it were literally infinite, do you believe that they tested enough? No. Right, right. Because what would be. Let's say they did 25 trials, 25 tests out of infinity, rounds to zero. Right. Basically, it's all as good as zero, almost. But here's the idea I want to put on top of this. This is going to fuck you up so bad. This one you need to get ready for. And this is for the people who are pretty sure that the problem with Ivermectin testing was just the dosage and the scheduling. Here it comes. Get ready for this one. If there are infinite ways it could have worked and all of the ways that the professionals tested that it didn't work, what are the odds that you would have guessed the right way? What are the odds of you with just, Oh, I guess I'll listen to this one, doctor, and I'll take this dosage. What are the odds that you would have hit one of the ones out of infinity? Remember, there are infinite doses you could have gotten, and all the ones that were tested didn't work. Now, I know what you're going to say next. You're going to say, no, they intentionally set up tests that they knew couldn't work. So if you intentionally tested all the ways that couldn't possibly work, well, of course you're going to get that it doesn't work. But do you think that all the people who were going to take it on their own would have taken it in a similar dosing schedule? Of course not. Every person who took it would have taken it differently. Some people would have snorted it. Some people would have rubbed it on their body. Some people would have ate it with apples, and some people would have had it with alcohol. Some people would have mixed it with hydroxychloroquine. Some people would have, you know. Right. Some people would have smoked it. Right. Some people would have injected it into their lungs. Who knows? But what are the odds that all of you who said you used it and it worked, you guessed the right dosage? Because this Ivermectin is really sensitive stuff, isn't it? It seems like if you don't use it in exactly the right way, you get exactly zero benefits, which would make it an interesting kind of chemical, wouldn't it? Can you imagine that other drugs, if you tested them at a suboptimal dose level, would show no benefit? How common is that? Let's say you were testing Advil for the first time. It never existed. Somebody invented Advil or ibuprofen. You're testing it for the first time. If you tested the wrong dose, you'd probably still notice it worked, wouldn't you? Am I wrong? And if you did 25 tests with various doses of ibuprofen, there's like 100% chance you would notice it worked. Unless every dose was so small that it was negligible. Right. So all I'm adding to the conversation is that while I agree with you that it's possible that all the people who are doing the tests were corrupted by Big Pharma, that is actually possible. Completely possible. I would put that even in the not surprising category, wouldn't you say? It's not. It wouldn't even be surprising. But we don't know what happened. It just wouldn't be surprising. So all I'm going to add is that I feel like the signal for Ivermectin would have come through with all the various ways they tested it. At least one of those would have shown something working, even accidentally if they were guessing the dosage schedule. All right, I'm going to ignore that question about my bowels, but it's noted. All right, so I'm not going to try to talk you into or out of Ivermectin. I will say solidly that both possibilities are in play. In my opinion, it actually is not insane to think that Big Pharma funded all of fake studies for Ivermectin. Will you be happy with me if I say that that is completely a reasonable hypothesis? Which, by the way, three years ago I would have said, you're fucking nuts. So I guess that's the movement on my part toward greater acceptance of conspiracy theories, because we've seen enough conspiracy theories that are true, like, totally true, that to say this one couldn't happen would be naive. That would be naive. I can't say it happened. But to rule it out would just be naive at this point. All right, did you see the. There's a video of MSNBC put together a panel of Trump supporters from Western Pennsylvania, and the MSNBC was asking them about the January 6th stuff and the insurrection, as they call it. And you have to watch this thing because it turns out that the Trump supporters that they had randomly chosen were all better informed on the news than the news person interviewing them and had to correct her more than once. She believes that they killed a cop. And the Trump people are like, nobody killed a cop. That didn't happen. That didn't happen. And I think that she Sort of ignored their corrections after a point. But when you see how well informed that random group of Trump supporters are, they actually do their shit, didn't they? It's fun to see. And it's especially fun to see because of what you would call a. Let's say visually. I'm just saying visually, there was a difference in their education and sophistication. In other words, the reporter, visually, I don't know anything about her, but visually looked like probably somebody came from a good college as well put together professional, really, really knows her stuff. And then the ordinary people look like, I'll say yokels, but I mean that lovingly because I am one. So I grew up, these were the people I lived with and grew up, and they would be like my family. So I can call them yokels if I want to, but I mean that lovingly. I mean, they're ordinary salt of the earth people, right? And they actually just knew more about the news than the news person. And you just have to see it. It's just a wonderful moment. All right, how many of you saw the interview between Lex Fridman and. Yeah, so this is brand new. And it was interesting because Lex is Jewish and wanted to push pretty hard on Ye's recent statements. And I saw a tweet on it that this is not my opinion, this is somebody else's tweet, but it matched my opinion. And this is a tweet that said I was entirely prepared to have my attention captivated by this conversation. But after 20 minutes or so, Ye sounds less like a visionary genius and much more like many fairly ordinary people I've worked with who suffer from bipolar disorder. And I wondered, did anybody else watch that interview and think that they were seeing mental illness as opposed to genius? I don't know if there are enough people who saw that disagree. Agree. Well, here's my opinion. I don't exactly agree with this comment, but I, you know, I resonated with it. Here's my take. As somebody who is a creative person professionally myself for many, many years now, there's one thing I can say with a fair bit of certainty that you can't be creative unless you're crazy. I just don't know that those are disconnected. I think you have to be crazy now. If you're lucky, you have a kind of crazy that isn't too obvious to other people, like that's your best case scenario. But if you're yay. And you sort of live publicly in many ways, it's a little harder to A little harder to hide it. But here's the thing. If we say that we're seeing somebody who's got mental illness, and by the way, he said he's off all of his meds, which is an interesting thing because it does make me think that other people told him that the way he's acting now is something that needs to be drugged away. I don't know if that happened, but it sounds like it did. Do you think it was ye himself who decided that he was going to be on whatever medications he was on? Or do you think a doctor decided and he went along with it? Or that family members said, hey, you better listen to this doctor. I mean, it sounds a little like maybe somebody else thought he should act differently or act different. And here's the thing. Who are you or I to judge his mental health? What exactly is the standard by which we compare it? Because normally mental health is based on not exactly objective criteria so much as whether it affects your life and the life of other people. Mental illness, no matter how much of the checklist you hit, is still not really mental illness unless it's hurting your life or hurting somebody else's. Now, you could argue that ye is making people upset. You could argue that he hurt himself by getting himself canceled, but you're only watching the third act. You tell me that you put ye in the third act of a movie and it's not going to go his way. Have you been paying attention for his entire career? I wouldn't bet against him. Even if you say he's totally crazy. He's not more crazy than he ever was. He didn't suddenly get extra crazy. I don't think. I mean, maybe he did, but I doubt it. I feel like this is the exact amount of crazy that made him $11 billion according to his estimate. I heard somebody else say 4 billion. I don't know if any of those estimates are good, especially now that he got cancelled by stuff, but he's a billionaire. He claims he's the richest black person in, I don't know, America or the world or something. So it's hard to bet against somebody who has a track record. I loved what he said to Piers Morgan in an interview earlier when ye asked Pierce how much money Pierce had. And Pierce said something modest about he was comfortable and ye said he doesn't take business advice from people have less money than he does. Now, that's more of a bumper sticker joke, but it's a good one. Like, it's a good joke because it hits it Hits right where he wanted it to hit. It hits right there. Yeah. Michael Jordan. Who's going to give Michael Jordan basketball advice? Like, if you're better than him, sure. But good luck. So the first thing is I would say that I do. I do see the bipolar. I would say that anybody who looked at that and said they could detect mental illness as it is normally identified in the normal world, I saw it, too. Doesn't mean I'm right. I'm not a professional bipolar spotter. I'm just saying that it just screams out mental illness. But illness, again, is a. Is a bigoted word, isn't it? Mental illness is a bigoted word. I should say mental. Mentally different. How about that? He's mentally diverse. How about that? Mentally diverse. I mean, he's the most diverse mind that we. That we have in America. He might be the most diverse thinker we have because he can say white lives matter. He can say he's fighting for black people. He can say anything. He's got the whole spectrum, and nobody else has that. So if mental illness allowed him to be the only person in the world who can see everything, well, that's a weird. Mental illness made him a billionaire who can see the entire field. So he can see what white people are thinking, you can see what black people are thinking. And he may be on the verge of learning what Jewish people are thinking, but not there yet. Definitely not there yet. Unless he's doing it as a provocation, intentionally, which he might be. He might be intentionally provoking just for effect. I'll give you another factoid that may or may not be influencing Ye's behavior lately. He told the story on his interview with Lex that at one point he got a phone call that he didn't recognize the number. It was Pete Davison telling them that Pete Davison was at that moment in bed with Ye's wife, who I take it he's still in love with and wants to get back with based on what he said at the interview. Now, imagine being, yeah, you've got two or three kids with Kim Kardashian, and he says that she was like the real love. Like, he's clearly still in love with Kim Kardashian. He's not hiding that at all. And he clearly would like to be back with her and with his family. And Pete Davison called him from in bed with his fucking wife. Now, if that really happened, Pete Davidson is a real piece of shit. Now, I don't know if it happened, but if that's true, oh, my fucking God. Now, I don't know what ye may have done to Pete Davidson to make him think that that was an appropriate move. You have to hear both sides, but it's horrifying. Somebody says, angel says it didn't happen. Maybe, maybe. Who knows? Yeah, it does sound a little too horrifying to be true. But we don't really have a record of ye lying to us, do we? I can't think of one. Has ye ever told, like a direct, like a factual lie? Is there any history of that? It's an Andrew Tate move. Yeah, kinda. All right, anyway, so I'm gonna say that there's no difference between ye's alleged bipolar, what you would call mental illness, and what I would call creative genius. But did you see creative genius in the Lex Fridman interview? It was kind of a mixed bag. There were moments that I could certainly think looked like genius, and there were other moments that looked like something else. But again, he's the billionaire. I'm not. I'm not a billionaire. So can I really judge anything he did as wrong? Now, apparently Adidas has dropped him, which some have suggested that that was his plan. His plan was to get full control back of all of his assets once he had built them into a valuable thing. If he gets it back and he starts his own business and people buy from him, he will be much richer than if he worked with Balenciago and Adidas. And he said a funny thing that you could only be mentally ill and a genius to say. He said of Balenciaga, who stopped their thing. He goes, in X number of years. I forget what he said. What will be the bigger thing? Yeezy or Balenciaga? In five years, are you going to be talking about Balenciaga or Yeezy? And I thought to myself, oh, yeah, he's right about that. Balenciaga is the one that lost because he's more famous than they are in terms of the general public. I don't even know who they were. I'd never heard of them before. I guess some fashion house or clothing maker or something, I don't know. Who knows? And it must be said that the major theme there was Lex trying to get ye to admit or understand. And here's the part we don't know. We don't know what ye is thinking. We can only know what he says. Ye acted almost as if he didn't understand, which is the part I doubt. He acted like he wasn't getting the point that talking about Jewish people as a group when he's Criticizing can lead you to the worst possible outcome. And he kept saying, but it's true. He kept saying that the majority of the people who caused me problems happen to be Jewish. So he says, why can't I say that if it's just true? And Lex is trying to explain. That's not the point. The point is not whether it's true. The point is you're making a statement about all Jews when really there were just individuals who were your problem. And I'm sure he understands that because anybody would. But he refused to sort of acknowledge it, like, to speak it back or to debate it directly. He was always sort of like a little off the left. And Lex, to his credit, went really hard at him. I don't know if I've ever seen anybody go harder at somebody an interview. So Lex, props. He went really hard. Now, the problem was, apparently they're friends. I didn't know that, but apparently Lex and ye have known each other and they're friends. And I think that the. Maybe the, you know, the friendship or even the celebrity part tends to distort things. But it was fascinating to watch Lex, in my opinion, quite legitimately bothered by what ye said and quite legitimately bothered that ye wouldn't admit that what he had done could have some negative consequences. And yet he kept joking and kept the friendship up. And I guess I went away feeling a little sort of thinking about it for a long time. And I said to myself, did I just see the best thing I ever saw, which is two people really going at each other hard and remaining friends? Because they did. They went hard and they kept. They stayed friends or. No, that would be the best case scenario, right? Or did I see somebody who was an anti Semite, refused to, you know, fess up? I feel like it was both. I mean, and let me say something that I wonder if this will get me canceled. Well, let's see, let's see. Let's see if I get canceled. All right. I am very anti racism. I do not like racists, and I disavow them wherever I see them. So just. That's my starting point, right? Zero. I have zero flexibility on that. Except there is one exception. There is one person who, in my opinion at least was. I don't know if he still is, but was at one point a huge racist. And that person, I allowed. I allowed it, and here's why. Because he had been beaten up and mugged repeatedly through his youth by black students, black people his age usually, and mugged on the streets and 100% of the crime against him had been by black people. Literally mugged multiple times by black people, literally bullied every day at school, literally smacked around every day at school by black people. Now, when I heard his story, this is somebody I went to school with. When I heard his story and then I saw that he was a racist, I said to myself, okay, I'm going to give you that. Not because I believe what he believes, that all black people are going to beat him up or something. I don't believe that. But I believe he earned it. He earned it. He's one person who can say whatever he wants about the people who beat him up. And I'm going to say, okay. Okay. Likewise, let's say you've been captured by, you know, some Islamic terrorists and they tortured you for a year. When you got out, if you told me that you were prejudiced or bigoted against that group, would I say, no, you bigot. You racist? Nope. No, I would say, okay, you earned that. You get to say that. You alone get to say that. And if somebody else gets tortured, they get to say it, too, because that wasn't caused by you. Whoever tortured you caused you to be that way. And they got to own that a little bit. So I give people a pass if they have been. Absolutely. I'll give you another one. You remember when the Japanese Americans were rounded up and put in concentration camps during World War II for doing nothing except existing and being good Americans? If the people who got into that had a bad feeling about white Americans, would you begrudge that? I wouldn't. Now they. They earned it. They earned it. They get to say, white people are fucking assholes. They can say that to my face. They can say that right to me. And I'll say, you know, I will acknowledge that opinion. Yep. So likewise, if my college friend said bad things about black people, I would say, only you can say that because you've been so abused so regularly by exclusively black people. Had to do with where he lived. So, yeah, you could be a racist. I'm going to let you have that. Likewise, if you were George Floyd's family and you started hating white people because of what happened to George Floyd, I'm going to give you that. I'm going to give you that. Now, I would love to see anybody rise above it. Wouldn't that be inspirational to see somebody say, yes, I earned this bigoted feeling, but I can rise above it. That would be great. And I would give you extra credit for that. But if you don't feel like it and you don't want to. I'm fine with that. In general, we should all avoid that. But now ye tells the story of being continuously abused by one group of people. I don't know how to fact check that. I would be surprised if 95% of his problems were from one group. But suppose it's 70%. Yeah. So to me it looks like bigotry. To me it looks like very bad idea what he's doing. I don't like the messaging at all. I don't disagree with him not apologizing because I think that's in 2022. Not apologizing is a reasonable strategy for some people. Not everybody. But you know, I wouldn't say that's always wrong. But you do have to clarify. You do need to clarify. And I think he is intentionally avoiding clarification because he sort of does want us to think that he has an attitude about the Jewish business people he's been working with. And I would say if it's true, and this is the fact check, I don't know. But if it's true that he has been unusually victimized by one group, while I would personally say I wish we would not treat any group poorly and I don't think it's a representative of the group, I would say I'll let him have that. I'm going to let him have it. Same way as if ye had been beaten up every day by Elbonians for a year. Even if I think Elbonians are peaceful people, I would say, okay, yea can be bigoted against Elbonians because they beat them up every day for a year. I'd be okay with that. Yeah. Here's Dick is giving us a quote. If you want to know who controls you, find out who. You're not allowed to criticize. Well, you're not allowed to criticize any group. You're not allowed to criticize any group. Is there any group you can criticize? Well, white people, white males. I guess you can criticize white men. Still. Can you believe that the GOP is so bad at dirty tricks that they have not yet hired actors to dress up as Nazis and attend all Democrat meetings and rallies? Now you say to yourself, but Scott, it would be obvious immediately that it was a dirty trick. Yeah, no problem. Do it anyway. And not only should you do it, but every single person, every one of the actors should wear a little fake Hitler mustache. Like actually wear like SS outfits. Like just go to the point where it's obvious. It's obvious. It's a Dirty trick. You want all the Republicans to laugh when they say it, go, oh, that's obviously our guys. And then make them run it on the news over and over again. And you know what the news would do? The news would run it as a hoax. They'd say, well, look at these people trying this trick again. Look at this trick they're trying. We know these are just Republicans dressing up as Hitler and attending Democrat things, but here's the problem. People are visual. If you show enough Democrat rallies with people wearing Hitler outfits, it doesn't matter how many times you say it's a joke, people will remember Hitler and Democrats associated. So I'm just surprised they haven't tried that. I suppose you get killed if you dressed as a Nazi and went to a Democrat rally. So maybe the fact that you would get killed could be the limitation. Democrats plan to steal the next election, which I didn't know until Hillary Clinton told us directly. Now, if you've been watching lately, you know that the way the Democrats work is if they're planning to rob a bank, they will start by phase one, blame the Republicans of robbing that bank or planning to rob the bank so that when they do rob the bank, they've already primed you that it's the Republicans, they're the bank robbers. We told you these Republicans were going to rob that bank. And sure enough, the money's gone from the bank. Who else going to be? But also, so here's what she says. Hillary Clinton said, right wing extremists. She did a video of this. Right wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election. Literally steal it. Do you know what she means by that? Means working hard to elect the right people in the local areas, Republicans. And that those Republicans would do Republican things and change the rules in a way that would steal the election, according to Hillary. Well, now that we know their playbook, the fact that she's warning this directly in advance tells you that the Democrats are definitely planning to steal the election. And she is trying to make you think that Republicans are election stealers so that it won't be so obvious when they do it. Now, you all know the play now, right? It used to be, I thought this was a coincidence. Like, oh, that's a coincidence. It feels like they did the same thing, that they accused somebody. That's probably just a coincidence. No, it's not a coincidence. This is a plan. They're broadcasting this as clearly as you could. They are broadcasting that the Democrats plan to cheat and they Plan to, you know, they plan to brand the Republicans as election deniers or election cheats or whatever. If they lose, if they win, everything will be fine. It's funny that we can see this coming and it doesn't make any difference. It's just going to come anyway. So that same video I was talking about where she. She talked about this upcoming election stealing, it took all of less than one day and probably just a few hours where somebody took that video, the real video of Clinton talking, and must have run it through some kind of an AI engine and changed it to. It's still Hillary Clinton talking, except her face has extreme sadness. She looks like she was about ready to cry, but she still says the same words and it's still her. And it looks exactly like her because it is her. It's just the only thing that changed was her facial expression a little bit so that she looks like. Instead of her usual angry, stern look. And do you know how much problems that's going to be? I mean, it's enough of a problem that you can create a whole person who doesn't exist and have them say stuff. But at the moment, we can still detect that. This change of her facial expression, I think you could make that undetectable because they did us a favor and they went far enough with the change that, that you could detect it. Like you could pick it up right away. But suppose you had done 20% of that change, 20% of it would look or make her look sort of monstrous. And it would make the message that she said just sound all wrong because of the monstrous look. And I don't know that you would be able to detect it. You could just tweak her 20% and make a happy expression look like an evil smile. Like it's so easy to just tweak it a little bit. And I think that's really something to be afraid of because that's this next cycle that I'm not talking like next year. This is something you could do right now. So you could take anybody's speech and make them just 20% more unhappy. Evil, negative. Huge difference to how people will perceive that. I don't know what we're going to do about that. We probably need some laws, Always need more laws. I saw Rich Barris, well known as the people's Pundit, on Twitter, and he notes that there's a Democrat operative on CNN who is citing a CNN poll that the elections are going to be really close, Right? So most of the polls show there should be some kind of a red Wave. But how could you cheat if all of the polls, if all of the polls said Republicans are going to win everything and then they don't, you can't really. It's hard to cheat in that situation. So what they need is at least one poll that says it was close all along. And then when they cheat, hypothetically, then the actual result will be so close to the fake poll, they'll say, well, this is totally expected. This poll said this would be the outcome. There's the outcome. Obviously the other polls are biased. This was the good poll. So CNN got it right and everybody got it wrong. And Rich Barris is warning us that it's sort of obvious that they're setting this up. They're setting up the fake polls so that they have and out when they cheat. Do you believe that or is that too far? Is that a little too far? Not in 2022 again. Three years ago, I would have said, no, that's a little too far. That's a little conspiracy theory. You know, I'm not sure I would go that far now. I don't know if it's true, but they would definitely go that far. That question is asked and answered. Yes, they would definitely do this intentionally right in front of you. I don't know if they are sure. Looks like it. All right, I've told you before, one of my best persuasion tips is the best graphic wins. Right? I would argue that climate change, the entire topic of it is hugely influenced by, by the hockey stick graph because it was simple to understand and after a while, everybody saw it. So whoever has the, let's say the champion graphic ends up owning the conversation. So if you can find a situation that does not yet have a graphic and you can provide it, well, then you own the situation. And there's a graphic that's missing from the election process that is so obvious. Now, I used to do this for a living, which was draw pictures on PowerPoint that showed a system or clearly showed a complicated thing in its simplest form. And I can tell you that if I worked closer to this stuff, what I would have done is I would have created an infographic, in other words, a picture. They showed in boxes each of the steps of the election. So box number one would be voter pulls a lever in the voting booth. And then that box would say it would have a little note on it about whether that could be audited. Now, I'm not sure you need it, but could you tell, for example, that the lever pulled is the same as the vote count for that machine? Is that auditable? If it is, say yes, auditable and instantly, maybe then what's the next step? What happens to the vote once it's in the machine or there's a physical ballot? Like what is the steps? Who hands it to whom? What machine does it go into? And then after the machine, where does it go? And then how does that data get from that machine to the big data in the sky? Now, if you drew a picture of all those steps, you could label each step as to whether or not it could be audited and whether it could be instantly audited or might be like weeks. Wouldn't you like to know, to see the picture of all the election steps and to have, let's say, a color coded green for all the ones that you can audit easily and then red for any area in which we don't audit or couldn't. Would it all be green? Because Democrats would say, well, there's no point in that, it's all green. Would it be? I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think it would all be green. Whoever could produce that picture and there would be a different picture for each state. Right, because states do it differently. Some have paper ballots, some, well, I don't know, but there's some difference. Some use machines, some don't. So you should have one of these for each of the battleground states. And that picture should be very clearly. This we can be sure of this, we can be sure of this is invisible to us. If anything bad happened in this little box, there isn't any way to know. Wouldn't you like to see that? It would change my whole opinion of 2020 if somebody credible put that together and it was all green. So yeah, actually every part of this is auditable. And we did in fact audit every part of this. And all those places that looked weird, it was just because it was like pandemic rule changes, but nothing illegal. It was just stuff that was unusual but not illegal. So think about this. How hard would it be for somebody who knew that information to create that picture? And I think the answer is if you were a person who knew how the things work, you could probably do that pretty easily. 10 minutes, maybe 10 minutes on the back of a napkin and yet we haven't seen one. Have you, have you ever seen any news report anywhere? Print, tv, Internet, that shows you a picture of the process and then which parts are auditable? Now is that not the most useful thing that you could have? What would be more useful than that for a country that can't decide if our elections are even fair. Nothing. Somebody's saying it's genius. But no, that's the opposite of what's happening here. If you think that's a brilliant idea, let me add some humility. It's not brilliant. It's exactly what every person in corporate America would have done if this were my job. If I were in charge of this, and it was just like within a corporation, my CEO would fire me if I didn't produce that picture. Right? Anybody who's worked in a big company, and let's say there were all kinds of questions about parts of the process. If you couldn't produce that picture and put it on one slide for the CEO, your ass is fired. It's the most obvious, basic, ordinary thing you would do. You would make that picture and you would find out where the problems are and then you deal with those problems. But the fact that the government doesn't do it is not because I'm a genius and they're not. I'd love you to believe that the reason the government's not doing it is they don't want you to know. They don't want you to know. What else could it be? Because they definitely know how to do it. And there are certainly enough, you know, ex corporate people who would know that. That's the basic thing you do, the most basic thing you do. Right. They know that not every person has corporate experience, but enough of them that somebody would have done it even if the boss didn't tell him to. There should be somebody who knows something about these systems, even a junior member who could just draw the picture and tweet it. Once it's on Twitter, we'll make sure sick people see it. So if you know how to do that, if you know anybody who knows how to do it, draw me a picture, color code it, and we'll argue about it. Because people will say, oh, you got that one wrong, or you, you should add a box or whatever, but let's fight it out. Put it on one page for, let's just say one area. Because it'd be different for each area. Just do one area and we'll take a look at it. Okay. How many had your mind blown by realizing that that's the most obvious thing and nobody's doing it? It's kind of mind blowing, isn't it? If you don't think of it, you don't notice it because it's the dog not barking situation. You don't notice what isn't there as Easily as what is there. Yeah. Once you realize how easy it would be to inform the country of what the real situation is, what's our real risk with these elections? Once you know how easy it would be, you have to know it's intentional that they don't tell you. And it must be intentional on both Republican and Democrat sides, which means that they both expect some advantage from cheating. I don't know how else you could. Let me say that more directly. I assume both Democrats and Republicans are hoping to cheat. I don't know that, but I think that both sides believe that their own side cheats and that both sides would be happy if their own side cheated successfully. Not every person. Right. We're all different. But there are probably plenty of people who would fall into that category. All right, so best graphic wins is some of the strongest persuasion advice you will ever hear in your life. Have you seen how my 16 hoaxes on my hoax quiz, most of you have seen that. So I created a little graphic of just bullet points. 16 bullet points of known hoaxes. Now, have you seen how. How effectively that shuts down a conversation on Twitter? Has anybody noticed it? Like, you stick that thing into a conversation on Twitter and the Democrats just run away. Or. Or worse, they argue. The ones that are obviously hoaxes are real. And that's fun, too, because you know that when they're arguing, oh, that number five is real. They've already. You've already. Well, I don't know if you understood the brilliance of this, but by making it 16 things, people will tend to say, four of those are definitely true. Which means what? That they agreed 12 of them were fake. That's what you wanted. So you don't care that they argue a few of them are true incorrectly? They'd be wrong about that. But they have to come away from that process thinking, oh, shoot, I'm on the team that created at least 12 hoaxes that even I agree are hoaxes. But those four, I still think those four are real. They're not. So there's my example. Did you notice how effective it was? Now, even though that's just words, the fact that I put it as a graphic and not text so you can just paste it in. It totally worked. You can see the power of the graphic. Whoever has the best graphic wins. And that will be true through this next election. If the Trump team had a graphics person who could create not just memes. Remember, memes are good because they're visual and they work on your emotional parts. But mostly the memes are mostly to make you join a team and like get a laugh with your team. Memes don't really persuade people, but a good graphic could the hockey stick graph absolutely persuaded people. And probably nothing else. Probably just that little picture of a hockey stick. Alleged shape for temperature change. That's probably all it took for a billion people to believe in climate change. A little squiggly line, that's it. So if you want to say to yourself, can one person change anything? This is the best example. The way one person can change the world is with one well designed graphic. That you absolutely can change the world with one graphic. Whether that's true or not is different. Oh, Trump started the kids in cages. Well, yeah, that was kind of a weird hoax because even the Democrats know that Obama had kids in the cages too. I feel like that's one where they just sort of don't care as opposed to actually believing it. Because I think Democrats believe that Obama did it too. It's just a question of extent and whether they care about that. Poll watchers, cpa, several control gaps, almost unauditable. Here's somebody who is identifying themselves as a poll watcher and a cpa. So if you're a cpa, you know how systems and controls and auditing works, that's like built into the job. And this one says, as a poll watcher, so somebody who actually knows the system and knows how to audit systems says several control gaps, almost unauditable. Now, by control gaps, I think that means that the handoffs are not monitored. Right? I think that's what that means. Or it could mean that people have access to change things without proper controls. That's possible too. Could be a variety of things. You met a Democrat who didn't know Obama built the cages, but when you told them, they probably believed it. So that's what's different about that, that hoax is that when you inform people, they go, oh. And they sort of accept it. They just think that it's worse under Trump, which I think it was. Right. Of course it's intentional. It's elementary. They had to Google it on the spot. And once it was Googled on the spot, they accepted it. Right. Once they saw that Google agreed with you, I think they accepted it and then just changed the argument to something else. Here's an interesting point of view that some people on YouTube are having, that some things are inflammatory should be discussed. Speaking of, yay. That just because what ye says is the suboptimal way to put it, that doesn't mean it's not worth Talking about. But what would you talk about? See, his claim, he does not. It's weird because he's being criticized for a claim he's not making. He's treating it as though the Jews are one thing, but when you ask him about it, he says directly, I'm talking about individuals. And then as Lex continually tried to say, well, if you're talking about individuals, please say it that way. Say the individuals stop saying it's Jews, and Kanye will keep saying it's Jews to use his words, because they are. But at the same time, he's not saying all Jews are bad or doing anything. He's just saying all of the ones that or most of the ones that were his problem were coincidentally Jewish. So it's interesting because the thing he's being criticized for saying, he says directly, he's not saying. And nobody else gets to overrule that. Right. He gets to say what he's saying. But Lex's point stands, which is that it leads you too easily into demonizing a group. And I do believe that the people who hear ye talking are not necessarily interpreting it as individuals. Don't you think that the people listening to ye are interpreting it as Jews? A lot of them, not everybody. Right. I don't hear it that way. But don't you think a lot of people are hearing it as Jews because they want to? They're already biased against that group. Yeah. Scott, my reply was an analogy which you love about Trump being inflammatory. I love when Trump is inflammatory. But I definitely hated it when he talked about the criminals coming across the border. It might have worked because it activated his base. So it worked in the sense of getting elected. But I don't like it. And I think that's his single biggest mistake. It was arguably not a mistake to say it the first time, because then he could just clarify. I'm not saying everybody's a criminal. I'm just saying that they're sending some criminals and too many of them. So he could have corrected that so easily, but he chooses not to. I think that was a mistake. Now, I don't think he deserved an apology. I don't think he had to give an apology because he's anti apology. And once we all understand that, it's easy to process that as just the way he is. But I think he needed a clarification. Clarification was, yeah, he wasn't lying, but he wasn't clear. And clarification is never wrong. You know, the President should be able to clarify something like that. I've heard Trump say he wasn't talking about all. Yeah, but he still says it that way, even since he said I didn't hear that. But assuming that he said that, that he wasn't talking about all of them, he has still gone back to his old messaging of saying, quote, they're not sending their best. So unfortunately, it sounds different from how he wants you to hear it. So it sounds like a dog whistle, Perhaps. We always say black in group context, while we do not with Jewish. I don't quite understand that. Somebody's saying they're going to call Yay, Kanye because that's what his mother named him. Well, that's not how it works. Your mother only gets the first draft. He had dead naming. All right, Why do we not assume ye is a bit simple? Because he's not like whatever you want to say about him. There is some real capability there. I think the genius is an appropriate descriptor for yay. Where you get in trouble is imagining it's all genius, because nobody does that. Like Mark Twain, really good. Albert Einstein, really smart. But you don't think they did some dumb things in their normal life. Probably. Probably. All right, ye did say that he believed he was one of the top five writers in the world or the country. What do you make of that claim? One of the top five writers? Well, remember, he writes his songs, and his songs are, you know, insanely well written, in my opinion, and obviously commercially successful. Makes you wonder who he thought the others were. He also says something about 30% of the English language comes from Shakespeare. I don't think so. Did you hear that part? Somebody said 30. He said 30% of the English language was influenced by Shakespeare. That couldn't possibly be true, could it? I've never heard that. It might be something like there's references back to it. But Shakespeare wasn't making up words, was he? I think he was using words that already existed. Maybe he was talking about the plots. Yeah, maybe. I don't know. So I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that, but I didn't. I didn't buy that point. Well, is ye in the top five of writers? Let me give you a little writer's secret. Do you know who writers think are in the top five of writers? Who do you think the top writers think are in the top five of writers? Well, it starts with themselves and then four other people who don't matter. Four people named randomly. Well, first there's me. Let's start with me. And I'll throw in some other people. Yeah, J.K. rowling. She's okay, too. Shakespeare. So it's pretty much Yay me, Shakespeare, J.K. rowling and Mark Twain. Mark Twain. It's really the five of us occupying that space. That's every writer talking right there. All right, I think I've done enough. Have I done my duty today? And of course, Joshua, top five. What about Bill Burr? Top five writer? Oh, you know, maybe you don't think of stand up comedians as writers, but you think of Chappelle or you think of Bill Burr and it's, you know, the performance is what you see, but the writing is sensational. I was just listening to another Bill Burr little tidbit just this morning, and I remember thinking to myself, God, it's the writing. The writing is insane. It's so good. All right, that's all for now. And go have a wonderful day because you deserve it, damn it. You deserve it. Go have a great day.