My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
- Will you take the vaccine?
- President Trump, the promise keeper
- Paul Krugman should help Antifa/BLM
- Antifa’s founding and history
- Kamala told Jacob Blake…she’s PROUD of him
- President Trump nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
The post Episode 1118 Scott Adams: Polls, Antifa Versus BLM, My Solution for Fixing Police Brutality, Shy Trump Voters, A$$holes appeared first on Scott Adams' Blog.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Bump bump bump bump bump bump on everybody guano it's another terrific day. It's good
one of the best and it starts with the simultaneous up which makes everything better. We can do it the scientific test. This will be a controlled scientific cast. Some of you closure ears and don't listen to them.
You'll, be the control and the rest of you will hear the simultaneous happened participate their will camps.
Who had a better day, you just watch all right. I already ready half of you randomly,
cover your ears and don't listen to any of us. All
is a government or a glass of agro gels, restyle accounting, jirga flask of vessel of every kind fill it with your favorite liquid I'd like coffee.
And jointly now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine her the day. The thing that makes everything better, at least for the people, were listening. It's called the subtleties happen, app is now yes, coffee is the best tool.
There is some controversy about it, but really there shouldn't be so I just
a moment before I signed on? I was looking at somebody run an article making this observation
which is funny when you hear about it.
Remember when Bawler testified
Everybody said wait a minute we ve been.
Waiting for our along. It was two years or whatever for mothers report
And now we are finding out their mother was not even mentally capable because when he talked everybody's looked at each other and said you do know, there's something seriously wrong with it right now, he's done a great
public service for years. So I don't want to mock him, but it
nonetheless true that he did not look like a competent senior citizens.
And now its binding, and it feels like is theirs
I've. Seen going on with the with the Democrats that
don't mind putting away person as the standard bearer
for their cause
As long as that white person is clearly mentally incompetent, isn't an accident that the two people leave depended on to save themselves.
From Trump are old white guys who are clearly pass the expiration date.
What is going on over there do they feel, like they care, put a capable,
or personal color or a woman as their standard bearer. There would still just just hold this. In your mind. The democratic party.
The party that cares about you know inclusive the care
about everybody getting unequal shot cares about systemic racism on onto
front occasions. I have had the chance to take on their lives
why will drop as their champion
An elderly white man who was clearly incompetent.
Is that the group you won't run in your country.
So you're, some Good NEWS, Seraph, maybe who knows
Pfizer and Bio and tech, or both governments to have
Ready, maybe, as early as October, for approval anyway doesn't mean will be approved, but they may have it by that.
There was a one vaccine trial, some other company Africa who who paused it, because somebody gets sick in the way that gave them some concern.
Chances are is not because of the vaccination but abundance of caution. They're gonna check that out
Now I'm really curious about how many of you would take this vaccination, because the thing with the vaccination is
if you encourage everybody else to take it, but then you can.
Early, don't take it yourself. That's kind of the best risk management is the best. You can do it if you were just like our totals sociopath and you didn't care anything about other people. You were just,
looking out for yourself, wouldn't near best play be too vocally
They all you guys. You should all take this. Take that vaccine get that vaccination, but then
you don't do it yourself, because as long as enough other people do it, it's gonna stop the the spread you just need to get to percentage of people.
The moon and then it's just gonna die off a few weeks, Sierra
what to get other people to believe it, but don't privately believe it. Now. This puts you
I would say me more than most of you. It puts me in a moral dilemma.
It's a moral dilemma and it goes like this. Like many of our politicians such as the president,
diplomacy etc. We are all
You say we as in public figures, everybody was a public figure is going to have to make a big decision,
and do not do not underestimate how how much pressure that puts on public figures.
Because I am well aware that
opinion influence as other people to make decisions now
sure. I'm totally comfortable with that. But I dont mind: if I've influence you do, let's say change your vote. Yoke is, I think, that's fair.
We live in a country where everybody's jockey to do that all the time some people do about it
others? I think everybody will agree. That's fair game getting people to change their political opinion.
As long as you're doing it responsibly and of course, I heard tons of feedback from people change their vote in twenty sixteen because it something eyesight.
Lots of peoples in the files. Are people make bets large bets,
larger than I think would be wise based on things. I've said about what might happen, so
When it comes to the question of whether I personally will take this vaccine, I'm in a tough spot, aren't I
think about it, because if I were to say publicly, I'm not gonna take this then it
cause other people not to take it. I don't know how many I mean my might be five people in the world, but it could be ten thousand. It could be sure I've changed more than ten thousand oats if you count the entire time. I've been
talking about politics, so I would personally be responsible simply by
role model cause and effect. I would personally responsible for maybe thousands of people making
life changing medical decision, but beyond that
It's not even though the
thousand or so just to pick a number who might be affected directly.
It also causes a change to hurt a majority here, that's the wrong word, but you know what I mean it causes.
The whole dynamic? So it's not just the people directly affected
we're all sort of in this together right, if you know, get the vaccine.
I'm more at risk. If I don't get the vaccine, if you know what I mean
so what do I do? What,
What is my moral obligation.
Well, I've decided, as does my strategy-
I will not make a decision pray
or to hearing the full medical case,
but I will not make my decision purely medical considerations, some people will I
Because my decision has to be a risk management decision that looks up the whole, because if you are a public figure, you're influencing people, you just guess, there's just no way.
You can get away with it now. I could be a weasel about it until you have knocked going to tell you yeah so that you could be not influenced,
I can tell you for sure that I will
didn't really don't know what I'll do, because I have
the story and I ve been away our way.
Until the last moment before I make a decision,
I want all the information I can get like right before the
those my arm. If I think I'm gonna do it like the most
before the needle goes in going to be a Google, because they are all that can be five seconds.
Update latest news: vaccinations: ok we're going to go, but if I see
one story that pops up the says,
Maybe other double think this more rethink. It might take another few days to think about
My I will tell you my bias. My buyers have not made a decision. My bias is towards getting there.
Innovation, so I want you to know that in advance right, because transparency is gonna, be candid.
Here I am either going to tell you I'm not going to tell you, which is transparency in the way
that might be the most reasonable thing to do. If I dont want to influence your decisions, because that would be another
the right it is I'm not a doctor. I shouldn't be influencing you on this, so I might I might recuse myself and just not tell you if I got it, but that doesn't feel completely responsible to me. I feel like,
my special case, given that my role is helping you your frame and understand your world, I feel like I have a greater responsibility than just going silent. So this is a tougher away. This you'll find out how it goes a biased towards getting the vaccination even if it's dangerous, even if there's some risk to me personally, unbiased or getting it.
Could change my mind this, just where about at the moment trappers announce announced, I don't know the details, but he says
It will be substantially lowering Medicare premiums and prescription drugs prices
bringing them down to levels that were not thought possible now. The first thing I love is that have you noticed that the president consistently uses the phrases? Nobody thought it was possible. You know everybody thought it couldn't
he says that about just about everything. Does nobody thought it was possible and of course, the first thing that you think is less not true. I'm sure somebody thought that was possible
If it's almost never true that nobody ourselves, it was possible that got done but, as
persuasion little add on it doesn't cost him anything. He never gets pushed back when he says this phrase. Nobody thought it was possible. He if you
If you think about it, I don't know that he's ever gotten pushed back for that,
Because there is always something else,
they would rather criticism for so he gets us one for free and quite seriously I thought of adopting it.
The technique and just are throwing you in there now and then I'll just say,
Gilbert and two thousand newspaper. Nobody thought impossible reset it couldn't be done.
To you should try it as a trial,
as a little accident in answer to everything, you say, nobody thought it could be done.
Uses for ordinary stuff. It's like I went to the store got a loaf of bread. Nobody thought it could be done. Everybody thought that's impossible, but I went to the store I bought a loaf of
just makes everything sounds better and I always laugh every time you does it because, because it will
in its own in his own little subtle way, because you don't question they just sorting just goes pass here: defences we cause you're, not really guarding against it and which is brilliant
We are I talking about now. I don't know if he can do this
Who knows if he can accomplish this fate, he did the he didn't, make a change that looks like you would make you,
drugs more competitive and we would have the most favoured nation right to buy them at the same price as anybody else which lower them
but I don't know what he's doing about Beneke premiums. But it's a great thing to say right before an election is one of the things a president can say before an election to practically by
votes with our own money that the one thing in incumbent can do is bribe the voters with their own money
I'm gonna take someone your money,
over here, some of your tax money
the lower these medical Medicare premiums. So that's always a contract
cuz, the people who are going to lose that money, that they are not thinking that as directly as the thinking of the lowered Medicare premium. So it's a good. It's good persuasion who knows how much
once he could make will say, I would love to see by the way- and I kill
tell me if you ve ever seen this comparison, you,
you ve seen endless comparisons of the president's fact checking and not winning the fact checking. Ok,
and as anybody on comparison of the President President trumps promises
and how well he's done keeping his promises as everybody look, is list of promises and then what he's done to it?
verses other presidents of either party and what price.
This is made, and I wouldn't what percentage of the promises they accomplished now. Let me
Our thing to compare, because
Somebody had only one promise, but it was a big one and they kept. It was born again,
But if somebody had lots of promises- and they were kind of trivial, do you care if they get ninety percent?
if there were mostly trivial. So you know it's not a direct comparison.
But it seems to me just.
Totally observation lie and I'd love to know if it's accurate, if feels to me that Trump is the best promise keeper as a president, we've ever seen.
And by a promise keeper I dont media accomplished everything you promised
but I mean that you can just look disease fight
like a wounded weasel to make those promises happen,
just not working in every case. The some of them are harder than others
take building the wall. Has President Trump put a great deal,
into building all I'd say yes, I'd say he put his ear.
But his reputation on the line
say laid later down the line. I say he pushed every door. Trade
Rideau, knob, lots of resistance, he's got a few honey
miles of mostly replacement wall, which is probably really good compared to not having hundreds of miles or replacement wall and, if you,
like you, just may be the all time best at at least attempting attempting and making a serious attempt at keeping promises and I'd love to see his story and lay that down
here's a question, could anti far and black lives
the organisations we just
by having an economist undertaking
because the problem with anti in black lives matter the organizations are not the idea of black lives matter. That's that's simply. Everybody agrees.
But the the organization
to that. There are more radical propositions, forget we're going
systemic racism is to get rid of the entire system and if,
I feel as though the anti far many of them
our artists- and
Baby black lives matter, I don't know how many of them are economist or or stem people, but I feel
if they need an
I would be, you know maybe willing to help fund,
the server. So that
Antiphon black lives matter could have the most coherent
human for their own case, because you want them to make the best case possible because we live in a country in which democracy and freedom of speech or the mother's milk as we live
to say of the of the nation, so I'm always in favour of even the people. I disagree with making a really strong case, because if I can't, if, if we can't prevail against the best argument,
Well, how good is your argument.
Maybe if you can't beat somebody else's best argument. Maybe there
Tell you something about your argument. Right so
in favour of making the best
I see them if I disagree with that- that's our system thrives so sure
before and black lives matter have some good economist Richard what was the same rights rice, one of the big critics, President Trump
Yeah Krugman have about Paul Krugman. Why doesn't Paul Krugman help Antiphon black lives matter.
Sort of gay mountain model, what their preferred world would look like cuz, I think,
If you gave them help, it would destroy them because black eyes met,
and ended for completely different depend for their support the front their support from anybody who is not directly involved in the organization.
They depend entirely on people, not understanding what they're up to my right. Now, I'm not
just about who were the secret
people funding them. Here is a George Soros.
And to destroy the world. Is it some shady? You know the intelligence group from another country? Is it Russia? Is it China,
yeah, I'm not even talk about that. I'm just talking about the fact that the
The people who may have no influence outside influence at all who just genuine
we believe that some kind of social.
Looking world would be better than this capitalist world, just let them make their best case, give them the best economists in the world,
Nobel Prize, whether you canvassed poker argument.
Do you like to see a pall Krugman assistance for Antiphon black lives matter? Of course you would
that would end all of them. I think I think they would be
And of all of us, just just explode
Rasmussen has a new information about people, don't want to tell you, there are political leanings, and so the question was:
Were you less likely then prior elections to tell people your political preference now keep in mind that the nature of the question is: are you less likely than prior elect
Which allows that you are already, even
the prior election, not going to tell the truth,
So how many of the people
they were already there or not. How many are additionally, there remember. So this is
top of the people who are already there and not wanting to tell their preference
in the eighteen to thirty nine year olds, its twenty four percent twenty forward,
and of the younger younger people who could vote.
Twenty four percent- and these are the likely voters- twenty four percent of them- know what to say with their political preference. Sir,
pretty telling and that's the highest percentage.
Now? What is it about young people that would make
the least likely to want to publicly say with their political preferences,
I would think young people have the most social pressure which tells you something.
We also see that women are subject.
Actually more affair!
the man to say their political opinion,
Why would women be more afraid than men to voice their political opinion
especially given that women are far more likely to support binding and Biden, is a perfectly socially acceptable persons.
I feel as if,
a number of women who might support trump- and maybe you just can't say that allowed as well as these young people will find out.
So. The actual poles where people are asked to their voting for appeared to be looking not so good for Trump at the moment and the battleground states. I think Michigan, Annesley plus nine for Biden now. Do you think that there are enough shies trumps supporters to close a nine point gap? That's a big gap. Do you think there that many shy trump?
porters well. According to Rasmussen, you can't rule it out now, of course,
we don't know anything because data in general,
was unreliable, just sweeping generalization about all data. At solving the especially
politics, it's all unreliable and all
also are unreliable and except for the actual vote, which might be unreliable this year too,.
So some people are saying by then there's not a socially acceptable. That's just not true Biden is completely socially acceptable because there's no recorded, I don't think, there's a recorded case of a trump voter abusing a Biden voter is there. Is there any recorded case of that? But there are plenty of recorded cases of trump supporters getting in trouble just for wearing a hat or whatever
write her just because there is a of noise in the news.
June Carol is in the news again. She's got some defamation thing against Trump because he said that she was not telling the truth better accusation.
Or something along those lines says about things about or maybe,
the because it was said on company a time when the president was president. The the government ends up footing the bill to defend it, so the Department of Justice whoever's defending it, but the government is good,
and the president the people mad about that. But apparently that's just the rule. If he, if you,
something that is causing it to be sued in the course of his job, which is what happened
it is the governments role to defend them. They can. They can take the case if they want to.
So that there is a story about Rochester to Rochester, Edson protests and right.
And looting, burning and stuff, and so the Rochester police leaders resigned and the chief of Police and Rochester was black ass right, the black chief of police was sort of forced to resign.
It chose to resign, but the pressure was on because black lives matter was feeling that the police were prejudice. So the black chief of police got so much pressure that he resigned, and here is the the thing that this made me suggest
If you are going to try to design some way to get two way and of the police brutality issue
some way that we can all be happy that has handled or does need to be handled or we're doing all we.
And just something that would look like progress while we're out, how can you do that and here's my suggestion? I think that I'm gonna make a gas that there's something that exists like an organization of black police off.
Does that exist. Could somebody tell me if there's any kind of fraternal or
social or political group, which is black law enforcement people who just have something
that they feel they want to work on and common does that exist
I'm assuming you exist if it does
exist. It wouldn't be hard to form one because there such interest in in this topic.
So suppose you formed, or already had, a group of black only black law enforcement people.
They stepped up and they said this. We would
like to be the ones to negotiate with black lives matter? Wherever else was negotiate with us to figure out what we can do in a practical sense? What what we can do that different and if we,
the black it, the black law enforcement officers, we will help you may help you sell it to him.
But in order to have credibility,
It was if we're in a place where you have to be racist. You have to actually be racist too. Maybe get something useful done. That's not
in this case. The races thing would be to have the black police officers take the lead, because anything that you know I didn't anything that segregate is automatically racist. Just
definition, but it might be a kind of racism. The area
He says because of the moment: ok that makes sense.
Yeah, you can say, as raises the just let the or or to promote the black police officers, taking the lead on the question of whether the police are being to abusive
the black population, its racist there's no way
rounded does any anytime. You divide people by racist by definition.
Racist, but it may also be practical and it might be the kind of racism
Everybody was ok just this once
I see where you're going with this makes sense is just gonna practical, maybe more credible.
So when we put that idea not there that, if
clothes matter wanted to actually get something done? That would be one path that I think will be credible,
but there is no evidence that they actually wanted something smaller than the the the evidence would suggest that there are a lot of them
opinions about what needs to be done and not all of them have to do with just solving this policing. I would say that as many as or maybe more who want to change the whole system of capitalism, the destroyer from the bottom up, in which case I wouldn't help at all cuz they're, not looking for a solution. In that case,
here is a new new set of social standards. I would like to promote, as you know, I have said that we need to add two sets of
Jose Etiquette or manners? There were not necessarily in prior generations,.
One of them is that
Forty eight hours to apologize or criticise or clarify. If you get in trouble for something you did
So everybody is forty, eight hours to say I didn't mean that or clarified or apologize and then just accepted move on
and the other is my twenty year rule the says: if somebody comes up with your high school yearbook and more than twenty years ago it just doesn't matter. There were also different twenty years later, that we shouldn't penalized anybody for anything they did twenty years ago, the less it was you murdered
or some kind of terrible thing? Like that, but yours and another one, I'm gonna adds list, and it comes because there's a new in New Hampshire police Chief refused to reinstate
an officer who was fired over racist text messages, so the police officer is accused and credibly. Obviously, for sending some text messages to his wife
only to his wife, they had some unstated offences, things that sounded racist to the people. Who saw the messages now I say,
the new law. The new rules should be this
Do you think that you said privately cannot be used against shoe publicly in terms that make you look like a bad person if its? If it's in the commission of a crime than yeah, I mean if your text messages, you show your guilty of a crime, that's different, but if,
say, thought crime, something that would exist only in your head and you have only communicate it to someone who you ever reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Let's say us
If you have a private message to his spouse or lover, and so
but he decides to make that public or even to talk about it. In this case, I don't know if they know the details, but the public is talking about it as if they know what these
messages about. I would say that the rules should be whoever took the message to the public is responsible for the content so
if there were a racist messages between one police officer and the spouse, the
rule would be that whoever took that the public is the racist there, the racist, because a hundred percent of the public have unpleasant and private thoughts, there's no ex.
To earth. Do you think that if you do everybody's private thoughts do do you think
be happy with Oliver. I don't think so.
The reason that we have we talk differently in private.
We do in public is that it is universally recognised that when you're talking in public
You have any impact on the public, and so, if you're gonna be a good person in society.
You don't wanna have bad bad impacts on strangers in the public of course. So of course we have a different standard for public stuff, but private stuff. It are you ok with private conversation.
Between spouses becoming a reason for you to get fired. I say
Whoever is holding the sub should be fired.
Whoever is holding the standard up. The private communications should get you fired from your job, a private conversation you had every reason to believe would stay private. I think anybody who makes that public should be fired immediately and should be like
the racist. If the message was racist, should be labelled a troublemaker if the message causes trouble, etc
this is the standard I am going to pursue any time the race
anybody out before for a private conversation, dont care. What the content is, do not care what the content is whatsoever. I do care what they do in public. I do care with
do on their job, but I don't care what they think. As soon as we allow that their standard is ok then it is just not on.
Problems every one of you got a big problem, as you have all said, things to people, you trust that you didn't think would be appropriate in public. So that's my
that I've had a number of conversations with, shall we say a high profile. Entire trump people recently
and what I say I approve profile. I mean people whose names you would probably recognise, and you might know that their left leading
But the conversations always take this form and I tweeted this love. People said they have the same experience that it goes like this
and then this will be the the sordid generic version of it.
Where's Somebody'Ll say to me, you know trumpet bit the head off a baby
And I also know that sounds like failures:
and then I'll, show a link and argument to prove that the very that leap,
argument against tromp is based on fake news. I've done it with the drinking bleach hoax. I've done it with the fine,
People hoax but often there's something they mentioned this just clearly, not true or they don't have the context or something
Add the context approved them that the thing they think is the biggest problem with Trump
literally never happened, and then what did they do?
Do they say? Well, I guess everything I've learned is wrong.
Serve the bad news source I have now adopted european and I'm protocol. No, no. They don't do that. Here's what they do. Every
after you prove that the main reason there was a real reason if it had been true
would have been really good reason did not like tromp, but it wasn't true
once they learn that they go with the guy with the go down the hoax funnel as I call it and then retreat to this position yeah, but look at those tweets, he said some bad stuff or don't you know he got
Jackson was wrong on the fact to which all say did you think? I'm just curious, as
oh Brad worry you under the impression the Republicans
we're not aware that the fact checkers have said the present jumpers filled the fact checking twenty thousand times.
I don't think there's everybody was not aware of that.
I'll think. Does anybody who supports the president, who also thinks that all twenty thousand fact check things we're just all lies
Nobody thinks of their all wrong
but we also are adults. Many of us are we
there's no such thing as somebody running for president or even being present
who was not lying on a pretty regular basis.
Obama alive lots of examples.
I didn't is literally basing his campaign on the most well known lies in America. Most debunk lies the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach out he's bases.
Those things those are literally the
innovation of Bygones campaign are too easily debunked lies and yet yet Democrats think
that Republicans haven't noticed the all the candidates do this like they would like? They think the Republicans only think that
grants to it. Have you ever been republican, who didn't think the republic
is also we'll tell some tall veil.
Is there anybody that dumb? And so the Democrats have to form this ridiculous opinion of the world
in order to preserve their there being right about everything that ridiculous
is it? You haven't noticed that the president uses a little bigger hyperbole? If you know what I mean
over here wasn't noticed. We been following politics and it's the first time you hearing the President Trump sometimes will exaggerate. First, I'm afraid
Democrats literally believe, as this is the first time you ve heard it now. That should be
such a glaring, an obvious cognitive dissonance.
But there should settle the whole argument about whose hallucinating
because and so on and so easily provable. Ok, let me ask you Republicans, let's less test them,
the fairy, how many of you have never noticed the president's sometimes will exaggerate as anybody ever notice and sometimes take something contacts a little bit
because it makes his gaze zone, but ever noticed somebody says Scots as I talked to find people, but I won't tell you who ha ha ha ha ha now, I'm gonna block you just for being an asshole. That's that's the only reason. That's the only reason I need assholes get blocked
So that's every conversation with every democratic goes away. I also learned the Democrats, who were actually like smart people who follow the news
This will blow your mind you ready for this. There are some things you think the democratic just say
as is my help, their argument.
And then there are some things that you think they actually believe. I didn't.
Things. They believed the following thing. I thought it was just something they say, but Democrats have actually been convinced by the fake news.
The reason the protests are happening is because a trump and that.
What year, when you hear that you laugh right, you think, because a tramp, what did he do, what the hell, the job do
But he didn't you didn't arrest. Everybody I mean he's probably is but he's not in favour of police brutality is not opposed to fixing a wreck exactly how to trompe were given to this conversation did trump cause systemic racism. I don't think so. If you asked Anti far and black lives matter, the organizers
not just all the people in the streets but the organizers and he said to them if Trump went away tomorrow, would you be good
Would we all bigger than trumps gone? What were they say? I
then there would say hell now. I think they would say
It doesn't have anything to do with job. It has to do with four hundred years of systemic racism,
I don't even think black lives matter and anti for blames Trump for any of it, and yet
black lives matter and the intifada are very clearly making the case that has to do with the whole city,
It's not something the tramp alone is doing. What's he doing opportunities zones.
Lowering unemployment for black people want.
Helping protecting the lowest income people in the country by having strong immigration preferences.
You really can't make a logical argument to tie these protests to Trump, but there actually educated smart people who are paying attention who have bought into the the fake news framing the
problem. The problem is that kind of mine blowing the anybody would believe that given given what we observe
so that's the power of the fake news, the fake news can make you believe something that is quite obviously not true,
really sort of. Obviously- and I have to admit that as much as I preferred present Trump get reelected, I kind of would like to see what happens if you didn't. You know what I mean
Would you know there's a part of me that would like to see Biden, try to stop everything, and now the I asked I asked one person. I was arguing with a hope. I profile person.
I said: can you explain to me why they would stop
would cause what is
the situation in which Biden would fix something. The trump is not willing to fix
able to fix and the argument when, like this, the because Biden would have the right, let's say, attitude and the right incentive and credibility.
Then he would be the adult in the room and then he would say
Negotiating and of course, he can't get everything at once, but you can at least
start to move in the right direction towards making things better forum for everybody about black people in particular
that, if bite and were in the
the leader chair sure
wouldn't solve system.
Racism right away, but he would start,
chipping away at it and sort of moving
things in the right direction, such
the energy will come out of the protests and they would say ok, we wish
we're faster, but now things are
in the right direction. Is that the most ridiculous opinion you ve ever heard, because I think it doesn't understand the protest at all, because the protests
the protesters have flat out rejected small change. They have rejected without conversation, any specific solutions that don't want a specific solutions if you dont know,
I don't know if you should have an opinion on this stuff. That's the most basic thing. You should know that there are now asking for anything in particular,
if you don't understand there, not asking for anything in particular, they want the whole system destroyed and then it will be rebuilt in a way that they don't want to specify
If you don't understand that you don't know, what's going on.
Did you know that the history of anti
is a little shall we say complicated now, because,
history is written by winners and an idea.
Everything I read everywhere these days, take this
with a little bit of greatness assault,
This is my understanding that
and if I was founded by this guy, Erst Zelman use a german guy in nineteen thirty two,
Do you know what happened round with a thirty years in Germany? Yes, it was about to say
time that Hitler was rising
Now. Hitler, of course want to overthrow the. Why, moreover, Republic, the the government of Europe,
but another entity that wanted to overthrow the government of Germany was Attica now anti far foreign by this guy Ernst tell them.
Was essentially a stolen guy, so he was a communist
stolen supported and he supported Stalinism, and
So Anti far was originally founded to be pro stolen and against any form of capitalism. Here's the other interesting thing. Fascism, as it was originally put into the name, anti fascist anti, far didn't mean the same thing. It means to do so
the whole argument that the entire far people make, as they say, hey, is right in our name, where anti fascist, it's right, name it. We cannot be that
because it's right there in the name, but it turns out the fashions- didn't mean the same thing: fascist just meant anybody. You wasn't a communist, that's at least according to Wikipedia
telling of it, then it just meant that you were in the last stages of capitalism. So it didn't matter if you're, socialist capitalism etc
so anti far, would have been against a Bernie Sanders presidency. Let me say that clearly anti far.
As it was originally founded and what the name Anti fascist meant back, then he would have been against Bernie Sanders goes, Bernie Sanders would have still democracy, she would still have democracy. He was still have capitalism, but it would be a socialist capitalism. That's no way now for anti far so anti fat anti far means.
Bernie Sanders in its original form. So if they try to tell you it's anti fascist, you should say it is it's totally.
Fascist and one of the things that is considered fascist is Bernie Sanders Entire platform,
about back up.
Originally work, anti farmland and they haven't said we ve changed it.
It would oppose Bernie Sanders.
How many people know that now
both the Nazis and anti far
said that they were alive in defeat
the german government, therefore thou make them an ally of Hitler. Now I got a little push back from that Andreas Back House, whose german he's Germans we get stuff
better opinion. We do on this. He said you can call them allies, because there
also killing each other is just that they had a common enemy in the German.
But they didn't love each other, and indeed, as soon as Hilary came to power that one of the first thing he did was crushed antiphon. So I will take. That is true
it is also true that the enemy of your enemy in the sky, your friend and
I would argue also that the United States
allied with stolen against Germany,
so in the same way with the United States was allied with Russia.
Even though we were friends we're just we had a common enemy anti fire, the cabinet.
And they were on the same side with Hitler for different reasons, but they also were they. They also aided each other. So you got that
About that surprise, you Peter Navarro likes to stir the part which makes me like him
I can understand why President Trump likes Peter Navarro. I certainly does not mean maybe that can change tomorrow.
But Navarro, goes for blood on social media and also in his entered
He doesn't leave everything on the table. You just you just like your goes further. The provocation then he's
afraid of it? So you can see why Trump would like him. If that's the case, openness,
but there was a new study if you will, in which some
the group looked at all the other studies. So observational was not one of these gold standard randomized.
Trials that you'd want, but when
look at all the existing studies. They found this note
Annabelle study found worse outcomes with I drastically use. No credible study.
No mortality or other serious safety issue was found conclude
The conclusion is that drastic lore of queen is consistently effective against covert nineteen
when used early in the outpatient setting
is overall, effective against over nineteen has not produced worsening and it is safe.
So again, this is a study of studies. So the flaw, if there is one I don't know if there is one, but
the potential flaw in the reason that randomize trials exists,
is that all of those studies could have the same law. That's possible,
fact is not even that crazy that they would all have the same law, because the floor could be this. The doctors get to decide who gets the drug. That can
So if the doctors are making a similar kind of bias on average than
Every study would have the same bias
and what would be the buyers?
you just say suppose
somebody? Look like they were really bad shape? You would be less likely together. My drugs chloroprene.
More likely to say war, we'd, better, move you directly to whatever's a more
more end of life, dangerous situation, so it's possible. There's this election bias. Don't know that.
But I'm going to still stick with. My thirty percent estimate, thirty percent odds, just paste
stuff. We see the news is not based on any knowing something in some deep way.
I'd, say: there's still a good thirty percent chance than Hydroxyl clerk Green is the real deal and seventy percent chance that it might be overstated. But
out it's dangerous, Radipole Twitter. Also it's not
until people, but I ask the following question:
your personal circle are hearing more whispers about voters moving to Trump or away
So you know you always here before an election. I used to vote this way, but now this year, under the vote that way, seventy percent of the people said that,
it heard people in their own circle their personal circle. Seventy percent of them said they heard people say they were moving to drop and four point through three percent said they had heard it go the other way. Now, of course, my audience on Twitter is highly.
But it was thirty, two thousand people voted and Seventys. Seventy percent of them are willing to say that they ve heard people going to jump but not away now. Would you necessarily hear about it? If people went from trumpet divided,
Probably probably sounds exactly like the sort of thing somebody would say out loud how
likely. Are you to hear the other way the somebody says? I'm gonna go for Trump, but I didn't vote from the first time. Well, they usually whisper that sort of a whisper conversation
So this is deeply non scientific Paul, but
when you get it, when you get a result that that's grotesquely balance, the unbalanced still unscientific, but I feel like it could mean something. The Michael Michael Cohen book is hilarious because it makes all these claims and I don't think anybody cares. I just don't think anybody cares, of course, Michael
one falls into my category of he's the asshole, because if there is anything that Trump ever said to him in confidence, the Kohen decided to put in a book that does not reflect them. Tromp, that's my rule
It only reflects on Cowan. So if the
something that he'll ledges was racist or offensive in some way and by the way we confuse offensive and racist all the time
I feel like we should do a better job of distinguishing. What's racist from what is offencive cuz you can be offensive to anybody doesn't mean that you hate them for their color. You were just a mess of.
Anyway, but what was funny about Peter Navarro in her clerk with that it is tweet, he starts with even
or blood and blood on the hands of sea and which, which is a great framing, because
but time prove Peter Navarro, correct and the people who think Hydroxyl oligarchy works
would they be correct in the long run, and I think there is good chancellor than sealant as have blood on your hands and a lot of it, and that's just the true so we'll see
this is this is so awful, so Cobbler Harris when in visited with Jacob Blake, who is credibly accused of some bad crime
and after she talked him he's the one who was shot seven times but survived. Shall my cops
She told him she is proud of him now. Megan Kelly wasn't too happy about that and she treated this proud of him
of him he is accused of breaking into a sleeping woman's house sexually assaulted.
Humiliating her later returning to harasser, then the cops she calls for help
say he resisted arrest, assaulted them.
Went for his knife? How about
word for his victim senator.
Seems like a very reasonable combat. Doesn't it
I would say that Megan Kelly has every right to this. Tweet does because it sounds solid to me.
And I say again that blood,
Why does matter if you keep, if you keep what's right, were idolizing or
or banking heroes and other people who appear to be criminals. They haven't Alban convicted, but their credibly accused. If you keep me heroes,
giving respect to literally criminals. You just can't be taken seriously. You just can't be taken seriously, so stop asking us to stop asking us to take seriously making heroes and criminals. At the same time, you want confederate statute to be taken down. I am in favour of taking their own country.
The statues cause or offensive, but don't don't then reverse your opinion say we can
heroes are these confederate statues guise of slavery
but why would you make a hero and somebody who is a sexual abuser, allegedly credibly, accused and then an actress who did not like it begging Kelly waiting rooms
Cats, who is survey vocal, democrat artist,
and she said to Megan Kelly about after maidens comment, you are a disgrace to journalism.
Do you notice a pattern here. Here's the pattern. Megan Kelly, gives an opinion backed by the factual reasons. Right, that's what happened so
I can tell you said this person has all these accusations against them. Maybe you no chew pride and somebody who's got those,
I guess I'm so she showed her reason. She gave her opinion based on the reason
does the democratic do after the person, you are a disgrace to journalism but
Rosanna. You left out your reasons. This
This is how the hawks funnel goes,
here are my reasons. Ok,
Roll, oh yeah you're, a jerk off
our agreement after
lose your argument. You're supposed to do something else, go find something else to do
you dont double down by saying the person is a jerk
don't even give reason. So you see that pattern lot.
The Atlantic, which did the fake news about President Trump recently
now what I say is vague lose. This is another standard which I insist on the standard goes like this.
If every journalist or any person, presents a package of claims and you can debunk any part of the package
but you can't tell one way or another was the other stuff is true, let's say because it say anonymous, source.
So you can know that the anonymous or said it, but you can independently verify it, but the power
you can independently verify turns out to be completely false. Like not even close the true you should discount all the rest of it. That should be the rule. Like the steel dossier,
If you found out that some part of it is clearly an obviously not true, obviously created to fool you, you should discount the rest of it now you might want to look into it, but you should certainly discounted while you're lucky you to it, and I would say that would be
a good standard have so the Atlantic Dead, yet another fake news was about. You should do something a video of
Biden appearing to walk through a cemetery, and the fake news was that people were bothering him when he was visiting is to see son the cemetery except
here's to see. Son was not in the cemetery and bite. It was not in the cemetery. He was photographed through a cemetery.
Ass, he was leaving the church lap and have a cemetery in front of it.
So he wasn't in the cemetery, really you just passing through where one was nearby
his son. Wasn't there now
the story was true:
from the same organization: the Atlantic, one of their writers,
that the other stories that you're supposed to believe virtue to this should be enough to tell.
That the Atlantic is just not something you should pay attention to. Apparently tromp said.
It is spent just they provide school choice to every parent in America. That should be enough room to win the blackfoot, don't off it well.
Jump, also banned Anti white trading in government. Now,
doesnt color, yet I white or maybe does, but it was the critical raised theory now.
Critical race theory is proposed
I would say, is trying to remove racism but
Anybody who looks at it can plainly see that its anti white by its nature.
It is a by its nature and the present quite rightly got rid of racist training in the government and brain cells. Spelter said.
His brain smelters, comment about the present getting rid of racist training. Yes,
comes back to whiteness and the backlash
to a Browning America and the President he's it up and the feedback loop spins round and round so to Brian Spelter, it's all about whiteness. So that's not a good contribution.
Brian and the best story today is the day norwegian people
normally the trumpet for the Nobel Peace Prize and justification.
For the nomination was that Trump helped
about the deal with the USA and Israel.
Also he was. He was key to getting South Korea. The North Korea to be in conversation now are those two things first, nor are they true, yeah yeah.
Totally, not only true so is this nomination.
Bull and one that you should take seriously the it is now I dont think politically speaking, I doubt that the president can get the word, but is it perfectly reasonable?
You should be one of the top people in contention. I don't even know who the others would be, who would be the
It would be number two that you could think of. That would get the Nobel Prize for peace, whose number two serious
Name name, one other person in the world that you can think of who might be in the top two or three I can't think on.
If I go on that doesnt media win but use
clearly the one for years,
and I wonder about a deal
Tween, Israel and the USA is a deal between primarily jewish people and is Lama people you're with me. So far, not a hundred percent but largely speaking a deal between Israel and the USA is Jews and Muslims.
Having along now, who was key to organizing this, it was Jared. Jerry cushion, took the lead in getting this done now. How does that fit with the Democrats and CNN believe their president trouble hates all of those people.
So the claim that CNN and yet I jumpers into making since day one
The present doesn't like Muslims that he supported the this. Is the fine people hoax?
that he allegedly supported the people who are
Anti Semitic, which would mean that the president doesn't like Israel doesn't like Jews and certainly doesn't like dear and who is jewish. So this is what CNN has sold to us
viewers that the president doesn't like any of those groups,
At the same time, you have to explain
the little confused CNN view were heads. Can you explain why
then tells you that the President hates hates Jews, hates Muslims and obviously would hate his own son law for being jewish
How do you explain that he's nominated for a Nobel Prize for help
those groups achieve peace. Does that make sense?
and your worldview that that will be.
Major priority for the president to get peace?
the two groups, you say he aids wisely
so hard for a piece for groups he doesn't like, according to you,
I am quite makes, doesn't work,
world view would have predicted this well.
My worldview predicted this because
We will look at my if you look at my blogging record your
I might be one of the earliest people who said you know, I think Trump can actually make peace in the Middle EAST. Now other people said
but I think you will see that my record is one
first ones to say I think he's gonna make this happen. Now it's the beginning of something that could be better. We hope it goes
reduction. But if your worldview did not predict this, then you should adjust your worldview.
My worldview predicted it and it happened
Every time your worldview predict something that does happen? Give yourself a check mark, but
also keep track if you're
our view predicts the opposite, you're gonna have to keep track of that too. I recommend this because otherwise you just don't know how much cognitive dissonance is getting to you are. Those are the funds stories for today.
Is there anything I most? Oh yes,
Serbia, the Serbian and Kosovo deal? I don't know much about it, but that would be
Another example of the Trump Administration be
useful to get two warring sides together our there.
The other argument was
in the nomination for the Nobel Prize Peace Prize, that it was noted, the trump
Ok, you thirty nine year pattern of of the. U S president's getting us into war, so tribe.
As the least two warring person of as president that we ve hadn't thirty nine years somebody says Gretta will win
if Gretta wins the Nobel Peace Prize and trumpet doesn't do we need a Nobel Peace Prize? We can just stop talking about the Nobel Peace Prize,
other there's a story. Tucker Karlsson was talking about. There's a taped conversation between Michael Cohen and Jeff sucker of CNN, in which it has revealed that sucker was hoping hoping for the best from Trump. I don't think he thought Trump would get elected, but it sounded like sucker was trying to maybe get a tv show going on CNN with job. So I would like the girl was playing ball sides there. So that was interesting, hats off now and I'll talk to you. Thank you, Lynn. That's very nice of you to say, and I will talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2020-09-09.