Back to episode — Episode 2072 Scott Adams - Trump Is Good For Ratings, Fentanyl & Tranq, Zuby Asks Why Get Married?
Context —
p. In three, two, one... Ah, that's good stuff. Okay, I'm really puzzled by something that I don't understand. I shouldn't have this much light in here, but apparently I do. So it seems to be working well. Here's some stories for the day. No surprise, when Trump was in the news the other day, all of the cable news had higher ratings, and so did I. It turns out that there is nothing as interesti…
← Previous segment →And it's so good they're still going to do it. That's how good it is. That's pretty bad.
So let me ask you this question. Do you think that China is behind the adding of the tranq to the fentanyl to make it far more deadly? Most of you do. I'm not so sure. I think it might be at least as much the addicts themselves want it. So there's definitely a demand for it, but it's also being snuck in the fentanyl to cut it, to make it more profitable. So it's probably a combination of things. I think China doesn't care, and I think the cartels don't care. It is just cheaper. It probably has more to do with not caring than it is to jack up the death rate. Because if you can turn somebody into an addict, that's as good as killing them from China's perspective, wouldn't they be? Just as happy with an addict as opposed to a death, because the death makes the problem go away. But with an addict you've got a problem, and that person is not productive at the same time. So I'm not sure it's China, but I can see why people would suspect it.
Now, how many of you would accept the argument that there are not really two parties, it's just a uniparty, and they operate together at the elite level, and everything is just a game, and really it's just one party when you get to the top? A lot of people think that. I see a lot of yeses. But here's the counter to that. How do you explain the fact that one half of that uniparty is trying to put the other half in jail? That sounds like exactly the opposite of a uniparty. One half is trying to put the other half in jail. What do you mean they're not? Of course they are. Massively they're doing it. Yeah, I reject the uniparty explanation. There's certainly a thing about rich people wanting to stay in power, but I think the uniparty is trying too hard to put members of their own party in jail. That doesn't look too uni to me. Anyway, I reject that, but I can see why you like it.
So a conservative Texas judge is banning — it looks like this would apply to the whole country, but I think the rest of the states will ignore it — banning the abortion pill. So there's a pill you can take if you just got busy and you think you're pregnant, and it will take care of it without going to the doctor's office. And apparently that's going to be illegal, at least in Texas and maybe some other places.
And I ask you this: there's no chance the Republicans could win as long as this is an issue. You know that, right? I'm not sure if you know how popular this pill is. But 95 percent... they tried to put the other five percent in jail. Yeah, I don't think Republicans can win as long as this is an issue. It will just take the Republicans completely out of the election.
Now, I have to admit that Republicans have one thing going for them that I respect a lot, and it goes like this. Republicans had to know, when they've been fighting against abortion, they had to know that if they won it would be very bad for th
Context —
em. Meaning they might get what they wanted with abortion, but it would make them unelectable from that point on. And I think they took that choice. So at least they're playing by the rules. Let me put it this way: at least the Republicans are acting in a principled way. It looks like it. It looks like it's a principled stand. But the net effect will be to take them out of power. So I'm not sure t…
Next segment → →