All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:44
Episode 247 Scott Adams: Biased Judges, Amy Schumer, Soros
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Mekong, Mekong man, Anasis.
All the people who have names I can't pronounce.
Maria, I can pronounce that.
Tyler. Tyler, you're always in here early.
You got fast fingers.
Kelly, hi.
Mike, Donna, come on in here, because you know what time it is.
It's time for the simultaneous sip.
The people who got here first get the best sips of all.
If you'd like to join me, lift up your cup, your mug, your chalice, your glass, your container of liquids, and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Coffee preferred. Oh, that's good stuff.
So I got in a little Twitter exchange this morning with an anti-Trumper who said, and I'm paraphrasing, somebody said this in public.
So here's the funny part about it.
You think you're living in the same world with everybody else.
And you think, well, everybody must see what I see, right?
You're seeing what I see, right?
I'm watching this, you're watching that.
We're all seeing the same thing, right?
And if I've taught you nothing, it's that that isn't true.
And I thought it was a little more obvious by now.
And again, this Twitter exchange with an anti-Trumper who said, I'm summarizing, everyone can see what Trump is like now, so if you support him, well, you're responsible because, according to her, everybody can see what Trump is like now.
And I responded, that is the lowest level of awareness you're ever likely to see.
The lowest level of awareness is to imagine...
It's mind-boggling.
There's somebody who can walk and talk and read and write, someone who's smart enough to tweet so they can use a device of some sort, an adult, and yet they have not noticed, have not noticed that people have a different...
Perception of who Trump is.
So for her to start from the presumption that we're all seeing the same thing is the lowest level of awareness that you're ever gonna see.
Now, there was a point in the evolution of the civilization and the human mind, and that point wasn't long ago.
It was just maybe 2015.
I would say if you said in 2015, hey, everybody's looking at the same thing, so if you're still supporting this president or this anything, well, you're going to have to own it because we see what we're getting.
That was so 2015.
I warned you back then that Trump was going to rip a hole in the fabric of reality, and you were just going to see reality in a whole new way.
For most people, I think they've made the leap.
They've made the leap from what I'd call the second dimension to the third dimension.
The second dimension is you think that everybody sees what you see.
And this poor tweeter was stuck in the second dimension.
I forgot anybody's still there.
And the third dimension is that it's absolutely obviously true that we're watching two movies on one screen.
We're looking at the same stuff Some people say, Kavanaugh, definitely guilty.
Some people look at the same stuff, definitely innocent.
How could it not be obvious now?
I completely understand if in 2015 somebody was still saying, I think we're all looking at the same stuff.
So if you've come to a different conclusion, you're either evil or stupid.
Because we have the same information.
We now know that that's two-dimensional thinking and that we're all living in a world of our own creation that exists almost entirely in our own experience and our own mind.
And it does not mean that if somebody supports President Trump, they must be evil on the inside.
It just doesn't mean that.
It just means we're seeing something different than you're seeing.
Here's a curious one.
We're having this big national discussion about Judge Kavanaugh's temperament.
Now, of course, as I've told you, temperament is a sexist term.
It's an anti-male term.
Because you don't really see it applied that much to women.
In a similar way, you don't see the word hysterical applied to men.
Hysterical is sort of a sexist word applied to women.
Temperament seems to be the sexist word that's applied to men.
But what we're watching is a lot of people saying, well, we've all watched the same thing.
We've watched Judge Kavanaugh's emotional response in his comments in front of Congress.
And some people are saying that especially his references to Clinton and the Democrats trying to get him, That that makes him a biased judge.
That he could never be unbiased because he's talked about Clinton.
He's talked about clearly one side out to get him.
And I said to myself, did you say the same thing about Judge Curiel?
Do you remember the Judge Curiel case?
The Judge Curiel case...
Presumed that because he had Mexican heritage, he was not Mexican citizen, he was second generation, but because his whole family had heritage from Mexico, you would imagine that he had a lot of family influence and that his family,
in all likelihood, we don't know, But in all likelihood, members of his family were anti-Trump because the media had set up that fight.
And they turned Trump strong on immigration into some kind of an anti-Mexican thing.
So that's what half of the country was seeing.
So it was completely reasonable in that context, in a legal context, to say, well, there's a situation here that has a unique potential, can't guarantee it, But a potential impact on the bias of this judge.
Is that fair to say?
Is it fair to say that if this judge is likely surrounded by family members who don't like President Trump, that that could have at least the appearance of bias in his decisions?
And people pushed back on that and they said, no, you can't call a judge with Mexican heritage, you can't call him potentially biased, because that's racist.
Well, it was crazy then, and still crazy, because people are bias machines.
That's what we are.
We are pattern recognition machines, and when we see patterns, we're influenced by them.
And in the legal context, it's perfectly appropriate to say, I think these patterns are having a larger-than-normal influence on a judge.
Maybe this judge should recuse in this specific case.
Likewise, with Judge Kavanaugh, just so we can be consistent, either judges are never biased by their situation or judges are biased by their situation.
It can't be true that both are true.
In general, we're not talking about these specific judges now, but it can't be simultaneously true that Judge Curiel could not be biased by his family.
Which is weird. I mean, if there's anything that's going to bias you, it's going to be your family, right?
Your family's going to bias you pretty much.
What is it that's bothering Judge Kavanaugh?
Well, to a large extent, it's the effect on his family, too.
And he's feeling that this is coming from one direction, sort of the Democrats, sort of the Clinton-friendly...
Part of the world. And so he called it down.
Now, I would only ask people to apply the same standard.
If you're willing to say that this judge has shown a political opinion, or a political, yeah, a political opinion, if you think that him displaying this political opinion makes him unqualified to be a judge, just be consistent.
That's all I'm asking.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion.
I'm asking you to be consistent.
Because if it's true that Kavanaugh could be biased by his situation in a way that would make him ineffective as a judge, stick with your opinion.
But also extend it to Judge Curiel, who, having nothing to do with his particular opinion, His ethnicity wasn't really even the issue.
It was that his family is very likely to be influenced by this, and it would be hard to imagine that his family doesn't influence him.
So I'm of the camp that biased judges are the only kind.
There's no such thing as an unbiased judge because they're human.
There's no such thing as an unbiased human.
There are, however, Judges who can learn to read and interpret the law in a way that they can do in public, and other people can say, okay, you're probably biased on the inside, but I'm looking at your opinion, I'm looking at your reasoning, I'm looking at your conclusion, and I would say that was fair compared to the law.
So you've got two judges here who are accused of bias in a way that should make them ineffective.
I say, pick one.
Pick a side. Either judges are biased by their situation, their environment, especially things involving their family.
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
But are they too biased?
Well, it's hard to know.
You saw maybe Judge Kavanaugh's...
He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, I think.
And in it he said...
I'm not going to quote him because I don't want to take time to look it up, but essentially he said that his primary audience for his testimony and statements in front of Congress, that his primary audience was not necessarily the public at large, not just the people in the room, but that his primary audience was his family.
Where have you heard that before?
Who was the first person who told you That if you're evaluating whether Brett Kavanaugh was exactly accurate when he said how much he drank, if you're evaluating to see if he was exactly accurate about the meanings of those words in high school on his yearbook, I said to you, he's talking to his family.
You cannot judge a man who's talking in front of his family.
Because if he's talking in front of his family and he's talking in front of you, he's not thinking about you.
You get that, right?
If his family's in the room or, you know, they're part of the audience, his family, the people he cares the most about, his children, his children that he's trying to raise right, trying to be a good role model, if they're in the room, he doesn't care about you.
Do you want him to be different?
Do you want him to care about you when his family's in the room?
I don't. I don't.
I want him to care about his family.
If he could sit in that room and care more about me, or more about Senator Feinstein, or even more about getting the job, if he could care about any of those things more than he would care about You know, the example he's setting for his family, the way that they exist as a cohesive family unit, the way they think about themselves, their reputation, what experience the children would have when they're dealing with their friends.
If you think he could ignore his family in favor of giving the technically correct answer about something trivial, really, the things he did when he was 17, And I'm not talking about the alleged allegation, I'm talking about the drinking in general, and I'm talking about the comments in general on his yearbook.
So, to me, and I didn't see anybody call it out for what it was.
I haven't seen anybody until I'm doing it right now.
When Kavanaugh wrote that editorial and he said, my primary audience was my family, let me interpret that.
If it wasn't obvious to you, let me interpret it.
My primary audience was my family means that on the little bullshit, how much he drank, did he black out?
Did he say some inappropriate things in a yearbook when he was 17?
He lied.
He just admitted he lied.
And he told you why.
In very clear language, in my opinion.
Now apparently it wasn't clear enough because I think I'm the first person saying it.
Have you heard anybody else say this?
But now that you hear it, it's obvious, right?
Once I explain it to you, it's obvious that when he says my primary audience was my family, he is explaining that That low-level stuff that everybody's saying, well, if he lied about how many beers he's had, he must have lied about raping somebody.
Or whatever.
He's not accused of rape.
Let's be clear about that.
So I believe he just told you the most adult thing you've ever seen in your life.
Think about it. It's the most adult thing anybody ever told you.
He just came out and said, listen, adults...
In his Wall Street Journal editorial, I'm talking to you, adults, because guess what?
He's saying, guess what?
But his children probably are not the audience for the Wall Street Journal.
Maybe they did because it's their dad in this case.
But he's talking to adults when he writes an article in the Wall Street Journal.
Wall Street Journal is for adults.
He's talking to adults, and he's saying, adults, understand, I was in public, but my primary audience for some of these questions, for some of these questions, my primary audience was my family.
Is there anything else you need to know?
So if you're such a freaking idiot that you're going to say that he lied about how much he drank in front of his daughters, And now that he's told you explicitly that's what he was doing, I think you have to see this in a different light.
The parent filter. Thank you.
Yes, you have to put the parent filter on this.
That's a perfect way to say it.
He wasn't a judicial candidate for the Supreme Court.
He was not a Supreme Court nominee Every minute during that testimony.
Of course he was a Supreme Court nominee, technically in every sense.
But, depending on the question he was answering, he was changing his mode.
He was putting his dad mode on there for a while.
And he has a pretty long history Of showing that he's willing to give it up for the kids, if you know what I mean, right?
He coaches, he sacrifices for them.
So this is a guy you know gives it up for the kids.
We know that about him.
He's got a long record of that.
So keep it in context.
So you may have seen that Amy Schumer and an actress that I don't know what she's in, but Emily Ratajkowski?
Ratajkowski? So Emily Ratajkowski or Jowski, I guess she's a well-known actress.
I don't know what she does. And Amy Schumer were protesting the Kavanaugh situation and they got arrested.
Now, here's a problem with Hollywood.
Now, I'm usually not the one who rails against the famous people in Hollywood who have bad political opinions.
I believe it is true as a general statement that the famous actors, famous Hollywood people, it does seem to me that they're less informed.
than the average person.
But maybe that's an illusion because the average person is pretty uninformed.
But let me put it this way.
The Hollywood people seem consistently less informed than the professional pundits who are also on television talking about issues on either side.
So I'm not talking about which side.
It doesn't matter which side they're on.
They're significantly less informed, it seems, than the average Hollywood celebrity.
Now, I usually go easy on them for the obvious reason that I'm a little bit famous.
You know, I'm obviously better known for being the creator of Dilbert.
And I would not want that same filter, I would not want the Hollywood filter to be put on me.
Because I think, you know, this is my own opinion of myself, your mileage may vary.
But I feel like my education and the way I approach politics is additive.
It's adding a little something that wasn't there.
Now, your opinion may differ, but I don't think I'm in the same category with some of the famous folks.
So I normally go easy on them, but here's the problem.
If your situation is a potential drunken sexual assault, and that's what this all gets to, right?
The complaint is about drunken sexual assault.
Who are you going to send as your representative To speak out against drunken sexual assault.
Well, I'm going to pick as my worst choice, Amy Schumer.
What is she famous for?
If you know her act, she's famous for talking about getting inebriated and having a lot of casual sex.
Now, I'm completely in favor of both of those things.
She can have as much casual sex as she likes, and I like her a lot as an artist, as a humorist.
I'm a big fan.
I think she's terrific. And I have no complaints.
I have no moral qualms.
I don't have any...
I'm not judging her lifestyle, and I don't even know if her lifestyle actually matches the things she says on stage in any important way.
So there's no judgment here.
I'm not judging her as a person.
I'm not judging your lifestyle.
I'm more of a fan than anything else.
But if you're going to put a famous face in front of let's not get drunk and have too much groping, she would be the worst choice.
I'm certainly in favor of her having a voice and exercising her free speech and trying to make a difference.
Those are all good things. And I think she's well-meaning.
So, in my opinion, she has no evil intentions.
I think she has only good meaning.
But I'm just saying, as the face of this movement, very bad.
But, if you think she's a bad choice, and again, good person, good intentions, just as a match for this topic, a bad choice.
But it turns out Emily Ratajkowski is perhaps a slightly worse choice even than that.
And I don't know if you'll be able to see it, but I'm going to show you the picture.
Let's see if I can do this.
So here she is.
Her sign says, Respect Female Existence, or Expect Our Resistance.
Which is a lot of words, not as clever as it could be, but Respect Female Existence.
This is what she wore.
So this is what she wore to the protest against women being objectified.
So here's my little protest tip.
If you're protesting about women being objectified, probably don't go like that.
Probably don't go like that.
So all I'm saying And again, I don't know this actress.
I don't know Emily Ratajkowski.
I don't even know how to pronounce it.
And I apologize to her for that.
I have nothing bad to say about her.
I believe she's probably a good person who thinks she's doing the right thing, trying to help.
I like people who get involved.
I like all of that. And I respect the fact that she obviously knows a lot about diet and exercise and fitness.
So if you were to ask me my personal opinion of her, I'd say, well, pretty high.
Looks like she has lots of talent.
Looks like she's done a good job with her fitness.
Looks like a pretty solid citizen, and she's getting involved in an important issue.
I like all of that. All I'm saying is, all I'm saying is if you're going to put a famous face on this movement, Not your right choice, unless you dress down a little bit to make your point.
So that's all I'm saying.
So Trump...
And let me clarify that, because if this is taken out of context, it's going to look worse than I mean it.
I'm completely in favor of women wearing anything they want, wherever they want.
So I don't have any...
I have no problem with women dressing any way they want.
And... I don't believe that that gives anybody a right to attack them.
So there's no retrograde thinking like that going on.
I'm just saying that for a branding purpose, it's a little bit off-brand.
That's all I'm saying. Trump went full Soros today.
He actually mentioned George Soros being a funder of protests.
Now, you might wonder, and a lot of people have asked me this, Why I don't talk about George Soros.
I don't know what to think about all the George Soros stuff.
My first, my initial thoughts about it all was that it was just a conspiracy theory on the right and that, you know, yeah, George Soros funds some organizations who are involved in some things and he likes different things than we like, but is it a big deal or is it just a convenient, you know, a convenient person to blame for stuff?
I never really had a sense of it.
And then if you try to look into it, the rabbit hole just goes down forever and you can't really tell what's true.
Because if you read anything written on the right about George Soros, you get three sentences in and you start scratching your head and you say, yeah, I don't know how true any of this is.
It just didn't feel like...
It just feels too...
Impossible to be true.
Which doesn't mean it's not true.
It doesn't pass the sniff test with me.
But I'm sure it is true that he gives to groups and some of that money ends up in the protest groups.
That's probably true. But I don't know how important it is.
And then I say to myself, where is the dividing line Between being active and funding things and trying to be a good cause in the world, where's the dividing line between that and influencing an election from a different country?
If George Soros is doing what he is accused of doing, shouldn't the US be sanctioning him?
So here's where the disconnect is.
If we don't like other countries influencing our elections, and he seems to be universally accused of doing exactly that by funding groups who are protesting and clearly trying to change the outcome of politics, why isn't that foreign interference?
And why isn't the US actively acting against him, as we would if Russia did it, as we would if China did it?
So one of the reasons I don't talk about the Soros situation is that none of it makes sense to me.
It doesn't make sense that the people who have the power The Trump administration and their supporters.
It doesn't make sense to me that we're accusing them of all these things, but then we're acting as though they're not happening.
So what we're saying and what we're doing don't seem to have any connection.
So I'm hoping somebody can explain that.
Oh, he's a U.S. citizen?
Soros is a U.S. citizen?
Where does he live, though?
He doesn't live in America, does he?
Somebody told me where Soros lives.
I'll have to look that up.
Soros. He's an American citizen, but he was born in Hungary, right?
Let's look him up here.
George Soros.
I should dig deeper into Soros, Scott.
I think you underestimate him.
Well, here's my problem.
The problem is that when you dig deeper into him, you can't really be sure that what you're reading is true.
So, he's a Hungarian-American investor, so born in Hungary, and then an American citizen, as you said.
But does he live here?
He was born in Budapest.
His children, relatives, website.
But where does he live and emigrated to England?
But where is he now?
Well, let me ask you this.
He doesn't live...
Does he live in New York?
Now, I can't believe that he lives in New York and he's in favor of open borders, unless he plans to leave New York.
He's in Austria, somebody says.
All right, well, he probably has a number of houses.
But here's my question that I just generated just now.
If it is okay for Soros, who is an American citizen, as you've informed me, if it's okay for him To influence our elections directly.
Would it be okay if he lived in another country and did it?
Suppose he was an American citizen and he lived in Russia.
Would it be okay for him to try to influence our elections if he lived in Russia?
Right? It's an interesting question, isn't it?
Let's say he lived in Russia but he was an American citizen.
Could he do anything he wanted then to influence our elections?
I'm not sure he could.
But maybe he could.
I don't know. It's sort of an interesting question.
But he lives all over the world.
Yeah. So he's financing a lot of people on the left.
Well, I guess I just have more questions about Soros, and I don't think we completely understand what's going on with that.
Now, is it still true that there's a senator who's planning to, he might miss the vote, I think he's a Republican, he might miss the vote on Kavanaugh because his daughter has a wedding?
Is that still true?
Because I heard it yesterday, but then I didn't see it on the news.
So I'm going to say Wedding, Kavanaugh, Senator.
I forget which Senator it was.
Oh, Senator Daines will be out Saturday, and they might hold open the vote overnight.
Alright, so you've got a Republican whose, you know, every vote is necessary.
But here's a Republican senator whose daughter has a wedding on that day.
What would you do?
What would you do if your two choices were this?
Your daughter's wedding that you really can't change.
You know, it's kind of hard-coded at this point.
You've got your daughter's wedding you can be at, or...
You can be the important final vote to change the course of the courts for maybe generations in a way that your side wants.
What do you do? What would you do?
Would you go to the wedding? If it were your daughter, would you go to the wedding?
Or would you stay for the vote?
If you had to choose. He might not have to choose.
He said he'd vote.
Here's what I'd do, and I'm just gonna put my thing out there.
If it were me, I'd go to the wedding.
If it were me, I'd go to the wedding.
But here's what I would also do.
I would go to my Democrat friends, and let's say that by the time of the vote, everybody's already announced their vote.
So let's say that the undecided people, by the time of the vote, have already decided.
So that there's no doubt which way the vote will go at the last minute when they actually vote.
Oh, Don Jr. fixed it because he's going to fly him or something.
But just hypothetically here, wouldn't Senator Danes of the GOP Suppose he asked his Democrat friends, once they knew that the vote was going to go for confirmation, then there was no doubt about it.
But the only way it could happen is if he got somebody who was a Democrat to vote for him.
Don't you think it would be completely legitimate to ask for a volunteer, just one person, Who is a Democrat to vote his way so that he can go for the wedding.
Wouldn't you like to see that?
Now that person would have a little bit of a problem in their own district.
Because in their own district, they'd have to explain, no, it wasn't a real vote.
I was just voting so this GOP guy could go to his daughter's wedding.
It would be nice, and maybe it could work in favor of the person who did it.
But here's a better suggestion.
If we get to the point where we know which way the vote's going to go, and the only difference is whether this poor guy gets to go to his daughter's wedding or he doesn't.
If it came down to that, and it looks like maybe we've solved this so that won't be a problem.
But... If it came down to that, I think the Democrats should vote unanimously for confirmation.
Because if the Democrats voted unanimously for confirmation, no single Democrat could be singled out as the one who flipped.
And it would be a bigger story, and it would say, yeah, we've had this huge fight over this thing.
But when it got down to the final thing, we're human beings.
And the human thing to do is Would be to preserve the vote the way the GOP was going to get it anyway, if this poor guy didn't stay for his daughter's wedding, and still let him go to the wedding.
Because the result is going to be the same.
You still get the confirmation of Kavanaugh.
That's a done deal. But why not be nice people?
Why not give some cover for a colleague?
It would be tremendous...
It would be just tremendous, you know, a good look for the Democrats because they would take the human element as a priority and that feels on brand to them and it would be a good collegial act.
I don't see any of that happening, by the way, and it looks like it's solved, but it's fun to talk about.
The vote is over, somebody says.
You'd have to trust them to do that.
Well, would you?
Or would you just have them come back and do the whole thing again and vote them in?
Yeah, I'm not saying any of that's going to happen, but it certainly would be a fun and memorable and good for the world.
Votes are taken in alphabetical order.
And he's Danes, so he's going to be up front.
All right. You just jumped the shark.
Do you know how many times people have told me that I jumped the shark?
Can you imagine?
Well, first of all, so Dilbert is entering its 30th year.
So for 30 years, I've been drawing Dilbert, and it's been one of the top comics in the world.
For most of that 30 years, probably 25 of those years it was one of the top comics in the world.
And for at least 25 years, I get about one message a week, at minimum, in which somebody tells me, well, now you jumped the shark.
You were okay for those first four years, but now you jumped the shark.
So for 30 years, people have been telling me, well, today you went too far.
Well, it was okay yesterday, but now you've gone too far.
So I always laugh when I see it because it's such a low awareness comment in my case.
Let's talk about 3.7% unemployment.
As we enter...
Let's say the zone of the midterms.
We're kind of now in the midterm zone, meaning it's so close to the midterms that that's all we're thinking about.
It gets harder and harder to say that the economy is all Obama's good work.
Now, I'm one of the few people in the world who is willing to say Obama did a good job, Trump is also doing a good job.
I think it's possible to hold both of those thoughts in your head when it comes to the economy.
They did different things and I think different things had to be done at different times.
I think Obama was probably a good fit for this emergency situation because he was a calm voice and the economy was going off the edge and you didn't want any extra risk introduced into the system.
So he was sort of a calm, standard voice.
But once things get moving along pretty well, Which Obama did.
He got things moving along pretty well, along with just, you know, the economy has its own cycles.
But I think that Trump's extra juice of cutting taxes, cutting regulations, you know, being sort of the cheerleader in chief for American industries, negotiating tariffs and all that stuff, I do think that added the extra juice.
He was the one who put extra risk into a system that was ready for extra risk.
So you don't want any extra risk in 2008 because the economy was on the precipice.
It was ready to go off a cliff.
But once you're strong, you don't want that same calm voice.
Obama would be exactly the wrong leader for 2018.
He might have been exactly the right leader for 2008-2009.
But today you need more of a cheerleader.
You need a marketer. You need somebody to put a little energy into it.
You need some juice. You need some enthusiasm.
You need some optimism. And these are all the President Trump's bread and butter.
This is the stuff he does.
So I think he gets credit for a strong and not just strong performance, but innovative.
Wouldn't you say that President Trump's approach to the economy, in terms of his cheerleading, optimism, cutting regulations, really the whole package of what he's doing, seems to me innovative.
because we haven't quite seen anybody who put together this package of economic ideas.
Breaking, US Senate votes to advance the nomination.
Is that the case?
Let's see. Let's see if CNN agrees with you, random person.
CNN says the vote is underway.
Susan Collins is a yes for now, but will announce her final decision later.
I think it's smart for all the people who are undecided.
Now, Kavanaugh was not just confirmed.
I believe the vote was for cloture.
Now, remember I told you before that we've learned so much about our government because of the Trump years?
Did you know what cloture meant last week?
How many of you knew what a vote for cloture, C-L-O-T-U-R-E, how many of you even knew what that was a week ago?
Now, my understanding is it's a vote to close the debate so that you can later have the real vote.
So it's only a vote to stop arguing.
It's not a vote.
That's the final vote.
So this vote, if it went the way that we think it did or will, means that they've agreed to vote tomorrow.
Why am I not watching the vote?
Because I'm doing this.
I'm doing this. And I didn't think there was any mystery about the cloture.
For me, it seemed that it was obvious that they would vote to have a vote.
That part seems easy to predict.
51 to advance.
All right, that sounds...
There are enough votes to advance.
They just got 51 votes.
Manchin and Murkowski flipped.
Now, again, voting to close the debate doesn't have to be the same as voting for it.
Because you could vote to close the debate and then vote against the proposition.
There's nothing wrong with that.
So there's still a little bit of mystery.
All right, let me ask you this.
You know that I predicted from the start that Kavanaugh would get confirmed.
How many of you didn't believe that?
Because I think at this point it's sort of a done deal.
Did it help you at all that I was confident in this and that my predictions have been pretty good so far?
So my prediction was that Republicans would say, unless there was some new information about Kavanaugh's past, my prediction was that the Republicans would go with, they would take the win, And they would look at the bigger picture, which is we can't have a world in which this sort of accusation derails somebody.
So to me, it seemed like they would favor the bigger picture.
And the bigger picture is you can't have a world where uncorroborated accusations of 17-year-old behavior ruins your career when you're in your 50s.
Yes, so they have agreed to the vote only.
that is correct.
But I think it's pretty safe to assume that the vote's going to go in the same way.
Historically, it's the litmus, meaning that if the cloture vote goes one way, the vote itself will go the same way.
So they'll vote tomorrow at 4 p.m.
You may be wondering where I will be tomorrow at 4 p.m.
because I won't be periscoping.
At 4 p.m. I will be delivering the eulogy for my stepson, my 18-year-old stepson who died on Sunday because of a fentanyl overdose, maybe from China.
So Fentanyl China, the country of great shame, they should bow its head in complete shame, is likely the cause of the death of my stepson.
Not certainly, but likely.
And they must live with forever shame for being that country.
Fentanyl China. I'm always going to put that name in front of them.
They're just Fentanyl China.
They're not even China Fentanyl.
They're fentanyl China.
That's the first thing you think about somebody who's killing 30,000 of your people a year.
If China is killing 30,000 people a year, or something like that, with their illegal fentanyl, then I think fentanyl should be their first name.
Not a good assumption, says JP. Well, I don't know which one you're making.
But apparently, much of the illegal fentanyl comes from China.
There's other stuff coming from other places, south of the border as well, I know.
All right. At three o'clock, they will say their vote.
What's that mean? Will that make it into your eulogy?
No, it will not.
Alright, thank you all for your good thoughts and I'm going to sign off and I have a eulogy for my dead stepson to write.
So that's my job today.
▲
Export Selection