All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
52:17
Episode 298 Scott Adams: CNN Teaming up With White Supremacists, Anti-Science Democrats, Macron
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, Joanne, Duncan.
You're in here quickly.
That means you're the most nimble of all the watchers of Coffee with Scott Adams.
Now, I know why you're here.
And it probably has to do with the simultaneous sip, followed by insightful comments about today's news.
So join me now.
Grab your cup, your mug, your stein, your glass, your container of delicious liquids.
I like coffee. And join me for the simultaneous sip.
Now I know to some of you I am appearing sideways.
I don't know exactly what that's all about.
I've seen myself appear sideways on some devices, but I'm broadcasting the usual way, in a normal way.
But a number of people have been commenting on that.
I don't know why.
I guess that's a new thing.
And I'm not sure it applies to every device, but some of you are seeing me sideways.
Don't know how to fix that.
So, we got some amusing stories today.
One is that GQ magazine is running Serena Williams on the cover, and they made a little bit of a graphic mistake.
So, instead of saying, let's say, men of the year, they crossed out men, and then in a big handwriting, they put woman.
So it's a picture of Serena Williams, and they crossed out men and put woman, making a point that it's not man of the year even though it's GQ, so they're honoring women on this particular issue.
So far so good, right?
How cool is it that Serena Williams is so successful, so important, that GQ departed from man of the year and just said woman of the year.
So far, excellent.
Here's where they went wrong.
The artist who apparently does the graphics or did the, I don't know if it's the photographer, has sort of a style where they put things in quotes a lot.
So just pursuing the artist's style, when they crossed out man and put woman, the artist did what the artist does in other things as well and put quotes around woman.
So now it says GQ, Woman of the Year, with a picture of Sarita, with woman in quotes.
How many editors did that have to go through with nobody realizing that this might be a problem?
And if you don't read the backstory, you would never suspect...
That the reason there are quotes on it is because that's what the artist always does in every other context as well.
You just wouldn't know that. So this is another example of what I call the failure of imagination.
You'll hear a lot more about this because it is so important to understand in the world and in the news you see it all the time.
If you had seen that cover without knowing the background story that the artist always puts quotes on stuff, how would you ever, ever have imagined what the real story behind that is?
In your wildest imaginations, would you have imagined the real story that the artist always puts quotes on it?
And still, not a single editor who looked at that thing.
And you've got to think that a cover, a lot of people see a cover before it goes out.
And it would be easy to fix, you know.
So would you have ever imagined the real story?
It's almost unimaginable.
And I'm going to use that example, and I may even use that in my book, because it's a perfect example where people make assumptions based on what they know, and it's simply a problem of imagination.
They simply can't imagine there would be some other explanation, and in this case there obviously was.
Let's take the case of the president...
Who was accused of pulling out of the cemetery trip in France.
Now the news reported that it was because it was raining.
And so people with limited information said, oh, he doesn't want to get his hair wet.
Because that's the only thing they could imagine.
If other leaders are going to this rainy cemetery event in France, and the president was scheduled to go, But he doesn't go because it's rainy.
People just complete the dots and go, oh, he doesn't like to get rain on his hair.
So he tweeted this morning, the president did.
He said, by the way, and I like that he starts it with, by the way, I'm just going to toss this in.
By the way, when the helicopter couldn't fly to the first cemetery in France because of almost zero visibility, I suggested driving.
Secret Service said no.
Too far from the airport and Big Paris shut down.
Speech next day at American Cemetery and pouring rain.
Little reported fake news.
So once you hear the real context, you realize that, you know, you always have to be careful about what you believe and what you don't.
I do believe that the president asked, why don't we drive?
Because that would be the reasonable question, right?
We can't fly. It's not that far.
Why don't we drive?
So I think it's probably true that he asked the question, or suggested, but it's also true that the Secret Service makes those decisions for him.
So if the President chooses to do something dangerous, the Secret Service overrules him.
They have very broad authority when it comes to his physical safety.
So they can actually pick him up and carry him places he doesn't want to go.
So it really is not the president's decision how his security works, and that's the way it should be because the president would make, let's say, imperfect decisions because the president is not a security expert.
So I think the real issue is that you don't want to drive an obvious Presidential motorcade too far.
Because if they're exposed in the countryside for too far, there's just too many things you would have to defend against.
Too many directions, too many miles.
It's hard to defend.
Now, I know what other people are going to say.
Well, those other leaders, those other leaders made it.
Why couldn't he?
Can you really not imagine Why Trump can't do it, but others can?
To me, it seems easy to imagine.
He has, first of all, a different risk level.
Second of all, a different Secret Service group, meaning that our Secret Service just might have different standards.
That's not up to Trump.
If our Secret Service is more careful, Or perhaps they have more evidence of specific threats.
Maybe they don't want a drone tracking them when they're on the road for too long.
There's also some thought that the only way they could do it, as safely as our Secret Service wants it done, right?
We're not looking at anybody else's Secret Service.
We don't care if France does it differently.
We don't care if Germany handles the security for their leader differently.
Totally irrelevant to us.
All that matters is what our Secret Service wanted, period.
It's not compared to anything.
If you're comparing it to other people's Secret Service, you would have to be a Secret Service expert and you would have to also assume that we have the same level of risk and risk avoidance.
And I think the President of the United States, frankly, has a far higher risk of attack.
So anyway, there's another example where it was hard to imagine what the real story was, but once we hear it, you go, oh yeah, that does sound pretty reasonable.
Next, I just tweeted this, and I'm going to see how many retweets I got, because that tells me how popular my story is.
So, 23 retweets.
Apparently it's not going to be very popular.
Oh, that's something else.
Let me just look. Hold on.
Bear with me. Sip your coffee while you're waiting.
I just got a look at something I tweeted.
Huh.
Seems to be missing.
Huh.
That's weird. Okay, well, let me tell you what I intended to tweet.
So CNN has a headline, and the headline is...
I've got to give you the exact headline, or it's no fun.
The headline is, White Supremacists Celebrate the Midterms as a Victory.
And then if you click on it, you see it says, Trump says he's not a racist...
That's not how white nationalists see it.
Oh, stop it.
So, the article says that, well, this fucking, I'm sorry, piece of thing.
Trump says he's not a racist.
That's not how white nationalists see it.
That's the CNN politics headline.
Now, Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't CNN giving the same viewpoint as white supremacists?
Is it not true that this article is as clearly as possible saying that CNN and the white supremacists have the same worldview on this topic?
And their shared worldview is that Trump is a racist.
There are two groups that believe Trump is a racist.
White supremacists and CNN. Literally, CNN is boosting the signal for the white supremacists because they agree with them.
The CNN is actually getting its news from white nationalists, white supremacists.
And they're pretending that the problem is with Trump.
If you came from another planet and you said, all right, here's the situation.
There are these people called white supremacists or white nationalists, kind of a little bit similar.
They're not the same, but they're kind of in the same ballpark.
And there's this group called CNN that agrees with them.
And then there's a group called conservatives who don't agree with them and disagree with both of those.
Which groups are on the same team?
Well, the one that's boosting the message and agrees with their point of view is sort of on the same team, at least on this minor point.
And then you ask yourself, is it reasonable to call CNN the enemy of the people?
I've extended this from fake news being the enemy of the people to CNN, because in the case of CNN, it's not about some specific fake news stories.
These are editorial decisions.
So at the management level, CNN has decided to sell an image of the president as a white supremacist.
Probably the most irresponsible Disgusting, reprehensible thing you've ever seen because of what it is doing to the country.
Now, CNN's not alone.
The anti-Trumpers are all selling it.
And I trace it back to what I call the Charlottesville hoax.
When the president said there were fine people on both sides of the question about Confederate statues, should they stay or should they go, fine people on both sides, the news decided to report that as he just called white supremacists marching with tiki tortures and saying bad things about his own family that he decided to throw in with that group on public TV as president of the United States and called them fine people.
Nothing like that happened.
And anybody who doesn't have their head firmly up their ass knows it's kind of obvious that didn't happen.
But they still report it.
To this day, CNN allows their pundits, and that's probably how they get away with it.
They let the pundits say it and they just don't edit it.
They allow their pundits to keep that out there like it's true.
When it's obviously not true.
You don't have to research it.
Just look at the story itself.
It's obviously not true. So, when you say, is CNN the enemy of the people?
And I'm extending it further than the President does, because he's saying fake news is the enemy of the people.
I think you have to say CNN is absolutely taking a position against Civilization.
Really. I mean, it's sort of a position against civilization at this point.
So, CNN and the white supremacists have joined teams to help signal boost their common view of the world about this president.
Now let's talk about...
The Democrats being anti-science.
So, and I'm going to give you some examples.
I've given you this example before, which is Democrats like to call Republicans anti-science because of climate change.
But what Democrats always get wrong is that the climate science topic is not just science.
There's a science part, chemistry, physics, measuring things, writing papers, very science-y.
That's the science part.
But the models, the prediction models, are not science.
Nor is there estimates of the economic impact.
That's economics. So you have three things.
You've got the science, you've got the models, which are not science, and you've got the economics, which is economics and not science.
Three distinct parts to understand what's going on, how big a problem it is, what it's going to cost.
The Democrats consider all three of those things to be science.
And if you don't believe all three of those things, the science, the models that are not science, and the economic predictions which are not science, if you don't believe all three of those, you're anti-science.
That's literally the opposite of rational thinking.
Rational thinking would say, if you both believe the science part, that humans add CO2, CO2 could cause things to go up in temperature, given a certain set of conditions, that's the science part.
Pretty much the conservatives believe the science part.
What they don't believe is that everything has been looked at, and they don't believe that the models are necessarily reliable.
That is more scientific, not less scientific.
If you're seeing people disagree with the real science part of it, I think that's anti-science.
So the people who say it's sunspots, for example, that would be a little bit going off the science course because scientists do not think the sunspots are responsible.
The majority of them.
Obviously some do.
Now let's take another topic, the forest fires.
What is the most common thing you're seeing in the news from Democrats about the California firefighters?
They're saying it's climate related.
Does the science prove that the California forest fires are climate science caused?
The answer is no.
The answer is, it's one of the hypotheses.
It's just a hypothesis.
What are the competing hypotheses for why the forest fires are so much worse?
Well, we know for a fact that the way the forests have been managed has changed.
And it's changed in a way that would definitely predict there would be more fires.
Next, there are also more problems with power lines and the forest being close to things that can cause fires.
So there are simply more things in the forest, more power lines, more people, more campers, just more things that cause fires.
And at the same time, there's more undercover, less clearing, bad forest management.
So if you're a Republican, you probably say to yourself, it's impossible to tell exactly what's going on, but you'd certainly have to look at forest management.
You'd certainly have to look at, there's a word for it, but it's the encroaching civilization and how all the technology and people and everything that we bring with us that can cause fires.
There's just more of it.
So that would be a factor.
And then there is a climate change element to it, which may or may not be human cost.
In other words, it could be X percent human and X percent natural, and we don't know exactly.
But I would say that Republicans By and large, look at all of those things.
Which is more science?
Who is the anti-science group in this example?
Are you being pro-science if you settle on a conclusion, it's all climate science, without looking at all the information which is clearly relevant?
That's not very pro-science.
Ignoring relevant data is pro-science.
To me it looks like the Republicans are the pro-science ones.
There's also the issue of mind reading.
And both sides are guilty of this, but for some reason you see a lot more of it on the left.
And what I call mind reading is They'll look at a certain set of actions, and then they'll imagine they can read the mind of the people involved to know why they did what they did.
The president's canceled trip to the cemetery because of the rain is a perfect example.
A typical way that the Democrats, you know, resolved this situation in their heads, where they imagined they could read the president's mind.
I'm not even making this up.
They looked at the situation and said, huh, he canceled the cemetery trip.
The other leaders didn't.
Therefore, I will read his mind.
I need a little help for this.
I'm putting all the data together.
I'm reading his mind from a distance.
I'm seeing something about hair and moisture.
Got it. Got it.
The President of the United States, according to my mind reading, does not like to get his hair wet.
End of story. No further research needed.
I've got it. I think I've got it.
Everybody else get that? You got that too, right?
You got it? Hair?
Water? Alright, you got it?
Alright, we're on the same page.
97% of scientists agree.
End scene. What did Republicans and Trump supporters say when they heard this story about Trump canceling his trip to the cemetery?
Well, some of them probably did some mind reading, same as Dale.
But I think that most conservatives, most Trump supporters said something like this.
There's probably a good reason.
We just don't know what it is.
There's probably a good reason.
And so I would say in this case, the people who had a wait-and-see attitude and said, well, there's probably a good reason.
There might be ten different reasons, and we just don't know what it is.
So I would say that if you were open to just listening to whatever the situation was, you probably were the solid thinker in this case.
Alright. There's an article in the news that says that experts have determined that one of the biggest health problems in the country, the United States that is, is people sitting in chairs.
So it turns out that one of the biggest health risks, one of the biggest killers in the country is chairs.
Chairs are actually killing people.
With all their comforting, feel-good qualities.
Chairs are so awesome that people think, I'd like to sit in that chair.
I'm so comfortable, I'll sit in this chair for hours.
And then the chair kills them because it saps them of their vitality and their fitness and their ability to move around and all those things are good for your health.
So chairs kill.
And the price tag they put on it was, and you have to take this kind of estimate with a gigantic grain of salt because I'm sure they can't really measure this sort of thing, but they're saying that moving around more would save $117 billion a year on health care.
Just moving around more.
And this leads me to my next point.
This is something I'm working on sort of on the side.
But it seems to me we're approaching a point Where you could build a website with links to all the ways you could get close to free or cheap healthcare.
And here's what I'm talking about.
And I'll give you just a few examples and that should be enough to paint the picture.
Let's say I create a website and all I do is as there's a new breakthrough, a new piece of information we know, something that would make your health Costs go down.
It gets added to the website so that people who can't afford regular health care have sort of the poor person's version of health care that they can go to and say, all right, how can I piece together a health care plan without paying for health care?
Let me give you one example.
There's now a device you can put on your phone that you just put your thumbs on and it will measure your heart.
And you can actually get a useful measure of your heart with just this little hundred-something dollar thing you click into your phone.
You would only need to know that one of your neighbors had one or somebody around you had one that you could borrow and you could check it once in a while.
There are a number of other little clicking things that will turn your phone into basically a Star Trek, you know, tricorder for testing your health.
But there are also things such as this movement thing.
Imagine if you had a Fitbit and all it did is remind you to move Enough that you would be in a healthy zone.
Well, that's sort of healthcare.
The Fitbit, telling you to get up and walk around every once in a while, would be really good for your health.
If you got all the little stuff right, if you had a set of technology, whether it's apps, whether it's websites, information, whatever it is, that could change your diet from a bad diet To a better diet.
Could change your level of activity from none to enough.
If you could do that with technology, that's a lot like taking money right off the cost of healthcare.
And then if you piece together things like WebMD, Google, and other sources where you can look at things, and then you add telemedicine.
And I'll be talking a lot more about this in the next few days and weeks.
But if you can get a doctor on the phone for a fixed fee anytime you want, you've got doctor's advice live for a low cost, much lower than the cost of having health care.
You've got infinite resources of things, you know, like things to test.
There are now, I believe there's a startup, I forget its name, that's making laboratories where you can just walk in with no health care and pay a small fee and have your blood tested.
So now you can give full blood work without healthcare, just pay a small fee.
You can get a doctor live without healthcare, small fee on the phone.
You can get all these testing devices, apps, places you go, much lower cost.
And then let's say the president does something with prescription medical costs.
I don't know what they can do other than just forcing the prices down.
But there's some thought that the price of meds would come down.
If you put all this stuff together, you get really close, maybe we're already 80% there, to piece together an inexpensive healthcare system that you just use as you need.
You just take the pieces you need.
We're getting close. And also the direct pay doctor model is part of that mix, right?
There are people having a small fee per month, and then you can use the doctor as much as you want, but it's this one doctor.
So there's more of that model coming.
All right. What about cancer and car accidents?
Yeah, so the other big piece of the healthcare pie, and, oh, by the way, I was, oh, I don't have it on here.
I was starting to break down which parts of healthcare are the big expense, and I'll talk more about that, but it's kind of hard to get that information because people are measuring things differently.
Some say the cost of hospitalization is about 32% of all healthcare costs.
So when somebody said, what about cancer?
What about a car accident?
That fits into the 32% of hospitalization stuff.
So there are parts that are harder to work on.
And the idea is that you could have catastrophic insurance for the hospitalization stuff.
So for the hospitalization stuff, you probably just need insurance.
Turning on a CAT scan machine costs $10,000.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that all of those scanning technologies, the total price of that should be dropping hard.
Like, I mean, that should really, the cost of that should be coming down like crazy.
Yeah, I don't have auto insurance for tire rotations, only wrecks.
Exactly. Any ideas for long term chronic illnesses?
Well, it depends the nature of it.
I mean, if your chronic illness just requires pills, Then the lowering of pharmaceutical costs could help.
But I would think that your catastrophic insurance should cover long-term expensive stuff as well.
It would make sense.
Basically, anything that's going to be super expensive.
It should be the dollar amount that matters, not the type of problem.
If it's an expensive medical problem, you need insurance for it.
3D printers to make everything in the hospital.
Yeah. Imagine you had a hospital where they don't buy...
They don't purchase many of their supplies.
They 3D print supplies as needed.
If somebody comes in and they've made an appointment for, let's say they've made an appointment for a specific condition, the 3D printer just starts printing the things you're likely to need.
You know, it prints those bandages, whatever.
Sometimes they could just guess in advance.
You know, I've got a feeling that cancer may be getting close to cured.
So it might be that the long-term cost of cancer is going to drop like a rock because I think we're close to the point with the new advances in cancer, close to the point where most of the cancers can just be beaten.
So you don't have to keep somebody in the hospital until they die.
you just cure it.
Yeah, and I would also think that there should be a special kind of healthcare I've suggested this before, and let me just put this out there.
Suppose you had...
I like this idea before I even say it.
Suppose you had a special health care plan that offered people free health care, no matter what it was.
They get free health care, and the government pays it, but only with this condition.
You have to give up all of your privacy just for the medical stuff.
Not all of your privacy about your whole life, although a lot of it.
And the idea would be that they would have whatever monitors or tests need to be done That they would use the people who were getting the free healthcare to measure what works and what doesn't for everyone else.
So in other words, the people with the free healthcare would know that they're guinea pigs and they would know that they're giving up way more privacy than the people who are paying more money.
But even though the government would be paying for this healthcare and it would be free and so it would be really expensive, the amount we could learn From being able to measure exactly what works and what doesn't, the amount we would learn might pay for all the other people.
In other words, it might be the best investment ever to simply have a group of people who, in return for free healthcare, give up privacy about their data.
So imagine, if you will, that you could know that 30 minutes of exercise saves 30% on medical costs over your lifetime.
Suppose you could know that.
Suppose you could know that the people who ate more potatoes had more health care problems.
I don't know that that's the truth.
I'm just using the example.
Suppose you could know That if you ride a bicycle to work, the odds of you having expensive accidents because of the bicycle are very high.
So suppose you could know all of those things so you could piece together a set of recommendations that would lower the health care cost of the people who are not in the program.
The people who decided to keep their privacy and pay extra for it, those people would...
Let me put it this way.
Let's say that privacy is a feature.
Oh, I just solved healthcare for you.
Here you go. I just solved healthcare.
I'll write it down here.
You'll love this.
Here it is. I just solved healthcare.
Privacy is a feature with a cost to it.
Suppose you pass the law.
I'm just brainstorming now.
Alright, so don't take this too seriously.
This idea is exactly 10 seconds old.
Suppose you pass the law that said every company that charges for healthcare has to itemize how much you're paying extra for privacy.
And then you could pay it or not.
So if you decide you don't want privacy, you don't have to pay for it, but your data would go into the system to make everybody healthier and to drive down health care costs.
Now when I say privacy, they would try to keep your name away from your data.
So the intention would be That your name is not associated with your actual health problems, right?
So that if somebody got into those records, they would just see summed up data and they wouldn't see your name associated with it.
The reality, of course, is there's always a risk that somebody will figure out your name and link it to your healthcare.
So you would have to know that if you decided not to pay extra for privacy, there was some risk Some risk that somebody would get your data.
Probably not the biggest risk in the world, but some risk.
So I'll bet you if you made privacy a discreet thing to pay for, there would be enough people who said, screw that, I don't care.
I don't care if somebody knows I have a bunion.
Why would I care about that?
There would be enough people who wouldn't pay it that you would be able to measure...
Did I pronounce that right for you?
Measure... The outcomes so specifically that you would probably be able to take, I'm just guessing, but I'll bet you could take 30% off the cost of healthcare just by taking privacy from an assumption to a feature.
that's it.
Just move it from an assumption that you have privacy to something you pay extra for, but you don't have to if you don't want the privacy.
All right.
Yeah, so the reasons, somebody just mentioned that the reasons for privacy might have something to do with AIDS and alcoholism somebody just mentioned that the reasons for privacy might have something to do with AIDS and alcoholism There are a lot of things that people do want privacy for.
But those people could keep it.
They would just pay a little extra.
So everybody gets to keep what they have.
Nothing would change, but you'd have an extra option.
Did you smoke any meat out back the past few days?
Let me give you an update on the fire.
Here's the view from my window.
If you've been watching this over time, you know that where I'm pointing, beyond the trees that you can see, without the forest fire, there would be a huge valley, an airport, a lake, and a ridge.
And they would be all clearly visible.
So the part that's missing behind the smoke is normally as visible as the trees that you can see.
Those are actually my neighbor's trees.
But the entire view is white out and has been like that for a week.
I think I'm still 150 miles away from the closest fire.
So just put this in perspective.
I'm 150 miles away and I can't go outside.
I can't take my dog outside more than a few minutes because it would be unhealthy.
The air quality is so low.
So, that's how bad it is.
Let's talk about... Oh, I forgot to talk about the President's funny tweet about France.
So I'm going to read you all three tweets from the president about France.
Because they're all gems.
They're all top 20% tweets.
Alright, here's the first one. On trade, France makes excellent wine.
I love, there's something about the pacing or the simplicity of his sentences that make me laugh before I even get to the point.
He starts with such a clear, simple statement.
He goes, on trade, France makes excellent wine, but so does the U.S., The problem is that France makes it very hard for the U.S. to sell its wines into France and charges big tariffs, whereas the U.S. makes it easy for French wines and charges very small tariffs.
Not fair. Must change.
Now this is the sort of stuff that people used to mock the president for talking like a sixth grade level.
And he does it in his tweets, but it is so clear.
I mean, that is such a clear tweet.
You know, you don't really realize that other people are unclear until you see something complicated explained with such simple sentences.
Then he goes on. He goes, this is the next tweet.
The problem is that Emmanuel, we're talking about Macron, the problem is that Emmanuel, he uses his first name, which is funny, suffers from a very low approval rating in France, 26%.
That's half of the president's rating.
And an unemployment rate of almost 10%.
That's about triple the unemployment rate of the United States.
So he's first of all called President Macron Emmanuel.
So he sort of humanized him, my buddy Emmanuel.
And Because I think they probably do like each other.
And then he goes, then he says, talking about Emmanuel, the tweet goes on, he was just trying to get on to another subject, which you tell yourself, hmm, that sounds like somebody we know.
And then the president says, by the way.
I love it when he goes, by the way.
Within the same tweet, there is no country more nationalist than France.
Very proud people, and rightfully so.
And then his next tweet is follow up.
He goes in all caps, make France great again.
Now that is good, good stuff.
Because remember, he's the President of the United States, so his tweets are news, although it looks like CNN is ignoring it so far.
Maybe they'll cover it today. But he's made CNN cover the fact that French wine is coming into the country, but we're being tariffed.
And everybody likes wine, right?
You know, in the United States, wine is one of the most popular things.
And all these wine drinkers who are mostly Democrats, I think, all the Democrats who drink wine, I'm not saying they're the only ones who drink wine, but that's a stereotype.
Are looking at it and saying, hey, why is my French wine costing extra?
Which is hilarious that it's even like an issue, wine.
Wine has got to be the least important thing in the world.
And... But then he makes them cover the fact that France has high unemployment and that their president has lower approval.
So in terms of framing, it's brilliant framing because it forces them to say there's a president of another country who's doing way worse.
I love that part.
But then when he gets into the nationalism, because they like to call the president a racist because he likes nationalism, he goes, by the way, there's no country more nationalist with a capital N than France.
Very proud people. So he makes nationalist and proud.
Being proud and nationalist, it's like it's the same thing, and there's nothing wrong with being proud.
And then... And then you have to ask yourself, is that true?
Is France one of the most nationalist countries?
And I think to myself, that feels true.
I don't know if that's true.
But how does it feel?
It feels like that's true, right?
Now I think it feels true because of the stereotypes.
So it doesn't mean it is true.
But it definitely feels true.
And so that's good enough, right?
For political purposes.
If it feels true, it's true enough.
And then he says, make France great again.
After he's totally thrown them under the bus with their bad unemployment and low approval rate.
He's suggesting that maybe France used to be better and maybe they could.
Maybe they can take it up a notch to make America, make France great again.
Oh, that was pretty funny.
Anyway. The people who don't have a sense of humor, and as I've told you before, it's one-third of the population, and probably a greater percentage among people who don't like this president, but if you don't understand that almost everything that he says in his tweets is at least a little bit funny,
And he means it that way because that's what boosts his signal.
It's wrong, but just a little bit wrong.
It's wrong in the way that makes it funny.
The example I like to use, here's a good example of why wrong is funny.
When the president said of McCain that the president said he preferred people who didn't get caught, Now the reason that's funny, and to me it's hilarious, and it's the reason that Chris Rock used it as a joke before Trump did.
He used it in his stand-up act.
Same joke. The reason it's funny is because it's so wrong.
It's so wrong to call somebody who's so clearly a military hero to say, I prefer people who didn't get caught.
It's the wrongness that is the humor.
That's the point, right?
If you don't get that, And that it's not about thinking that McCain is not a hero, because I don't think anybody thinks that, really.
Nobody thinks that.
It's just hilarious that he would say something that you're not supposed to say that is so wrong.
But if you know he's got a sense of humor, it comes off completely different.
Uh... Alright, I'm just looking at your comments.
So how many days has it been since the recount started, or whatever the hell they're doing there in Florida, trying to count the votes, and we still don't have a clear sign of massive voter fraud, do we?
The thing you have to...
The thing you have to watch when you're trying to judge what's happening in Florida is that if a place that is mostly Democrat finds a box of uncounted votes, they're probably going to be mostly Democrat because it's a mostly Democrat place.
So if all we have is that 22 votes got mixed in where they weren't supposed to and there was one box of uncounted votes, if that's all we have, That we don't have massive voter fraud.
We don't. We just have some minor problems that wouldn't change the result in this case.
But I will agree with all of you That there's enough suspicious-looking stuff here that you have to just put a lid on it and make sure that nothing suspicious is happening.
Now, I'm not going to say that we won't find massive voter fraud.
If I had to bet?
If I had to bet on it?
Well, that's a good question.
Which way would I bet? Would you bet for or against Finding massive voter fraud.
And when I say massive, it's got to be more than we found a box of votes or 22 votes got mixed in someplace they shouldn't have, something like that.
I mean, like literal, everybody agrees.
So massive that even the Democrats would say, oh crap, I didn't know about that.
That's pretty massive. Do you think we'll find that?
How many of you will predict that we will find massive voter fraud and have Broward?
Give me your votes.
How many think we will find massive voter fraud?
Now that's slightly different from whether it exists or doesn't exist.
I'm talking about whether it's detectable.
And I would say that if it's massive, it's going to be detectable.
So most of you, it looks like almost...
Oh, I agree with you that fraud is fraud, so if there's a punishment involved for putting 22 votes in the wrong place and you can determine intent, then that has to be pursued.
But in terms of change in the election, so I think I only saw one person who thought there was not massive fraud, but there might be a lot of micro-fraud.
Won't find, won't find.
I'm going to go out on a limb.
Here's my prediction. Are you ready?
My prediction is that we will not find massive voter fraud in Broward.
So that's my prediction.
And I want you to track this one.
Because remember, I've told you since 2015 that you should judge my credibility By prediction only.
Don't judge anybody, especially me, by whether or not the things I'm saying today make sense of the past, because everybody can do that.
That's easy. It's prediction that gives you any credibility.
So I'm going to predict that they will find small matters of irregularities, but they will not find massive voter fraud.
Here's why. We would already know.
That's why. If it was massive, the odds are we'd already know.
We might be arguing about whether it is exactly what we think it is.
We might be arguing about how big is massive.
We might be arguing about those things.
But so far, it's been a little bit of time Feels like too much time has gone by.
Now, I'm limiting my prediction.
I want to be careful here. I'm limiting my prediction to Broward.
So, let's just limit it to Broward.
Because there's a separate question of whether a lot of non-residents voted.
And I think we need to look into that as well.
I'm going to say that's...
That's not the problem we're looking at in Broward.
So I'll say this clearly again.
My prediction is only about Broward, and I predict we will not find gigantic fraud.
There's definitely reason to think it might be there.
And it's definitely good that we're digging into it, but I think we would have found it by now.
Or at least we'd be talking about things that look like it, even if it wasn't confirmed.
The larger question of whether Florida in general signed up some people who should not have voted That's a good question, and I don't have a prediction on that.
And obviously that would also affect Broward, but it's not the kind of fraud they're looking for in Broward.
They're looking for something even more granular than that.
Alright, that's enough for now.
I'm going to talk. Trucks being videoed.
Yeah, I wouldn't put too much credibility in trucks being videotaped and stuff like that.
I think if it's massive, we'll know about it soon.
▲
Export Selection