All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
40:54
Episode 656 Scott Adams: All the Crazy People on Twitter Today, Hong Kong, Science
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Hello, come in, come in.
Gather around. Lots of seats in the front.
And because it's the weekend, I know you're prepared.
You've got your beverage.
You're waiting for me to give the signal for the simultaneous sip.
The best sip of the day.
The dopamine hit that you're going to love.
All right, everybody. Get ready.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a stein or a glass, a chalice, a tank or a thermos, a flashlight, a canteen, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
Hope you do, too. But whatever you have in your vessel, raise it to your lips and join me for the simultaneous sip.
Well, I see one of my co-conspiracists just logged on.
You know what I'm talking about.
It was revealed today, and I feel quite embarrassed about this, that even I didn't know this until today, but I learned on social media today that apparently I'm a George Soros puppet.
And I'm taking funding for him in my clever scheme to data mine people who are on Twitter and possibly make money by giving money away.
I don't know how any of that makes sense, but that's what Twitter is telling me today.
So a number of people who have been under the queue, well, I guess they crawled out of the queue sewer to attack me and attack Bill Pulte For trying to give away money.
Now, it makes you wonder, is there anything that people can't find something to complain about?
Literally, rich guy tries to give away his money and tries to do it in a way that encourages other rich people to give away their money to people in need.
That's what's happening.
What's the result of rich people trying to give away their money to people in need?
Result is, well, you rich people are probably working for George Soros, because George Soros, one of his companies, once invested in a public company that anybody can invest in, and they invest in hundreds of things.
So, because George Soros invested in a public company, somehow I'm a puppet of George Soros, because it all fits.
It all makes sense. Then other people are giving Bill Pulte a hard time for using the Cash app.
As the tool to deliver his gifts.
Cash App, most of you should know, is partly owned by Jack Dorsey, who is, you know, also Twitter.
So people are saying, wait a minute, Jack Dorsey and Twitter and Cash App?
There must be something going on.
Somebody's making money off of this.
To which I say, I don't know much about Cash App.
But I don't know of any financial organization that works for free.
I don't know. If you use a credit card, somebody takes a piece.
If you use an ATM and it's not your bank, somebody takes a piece.
If you send a wire transfer, the bank takes a fee.
So, maybe.
I don't know. I'm not sure that I care one way or the other.
But here's the thing.
Jack and Bill...
have already been working together and worked together in this big project in St.
Louis in which they're clearing up a lot of the blight in St.
Louis which is Jack's hometown and so they've already done a massive very expensive giveaway both their own money mostly Jack's in that case in St.
Louis but Bill put his own money in as well and So they know each other and they have a working relationship in the philanthropic field.
What app should Bill use?
Of course he's using the Cash App.
If you were working with me and giving away massive amounts of money and we were working together on the philanthropy and you had an app for delivering money and I was delivering money, what the hell app would I use?
Of course I'm going to use that one.
So if you're looking for the hidden secret motives, none of it's hidden.
He talks about it all the time, the connection between the Cash App and Twitter and Jack and Bill Pulte.
This is all public information. There's nothing being hidden at all.
Other people are saying, why is Bill Pulte trying to raise his Twitter followers by this?
To which I say, it's public.
He's saying exactly what he's doing.
He's saying, if you could retweet me, if you follow me, etc.
He's building up his Twitter following so that his philanthropy has more power.
It couldn't be more public.
It would be impossible for him to be more transparent than that.
So, anyway, the Q conspiracy nuts of all come out to attack anybody associated in any way with this, and it's just crazy time.
Let's talk about Senator Kamala Harris.
By now you've all seen the news that she was giving her stump speech, and one of the people in the audience referred to President Trump using the R word.
The R-E-T-A-R-D word.
And did Kamala Harris chastise him and say, don't use that word?
She did not. She laughed and said, what was her exact tweet?
She said, well said, well said, when he referred to the president as, quote, mentally R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D. Now, the first thing I'd like to say is, I don't believe there's a human being on earth who doesn't use that word privately.
Am I right? Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit.
I'm sure there's somebody on Earth who doesn't use that word even privately.
But privately, privately, everybody uses that word.
Period. Just everybody. You know, maybe 99.9, but basically everybody uses that word privately.
Now, is it a problem to use it privately?
I would argue no.
Because when you're using it privately and you know who you're talking to, you know they're not going to be offended and it's not meant to be cruel.
You don't have any bad intentions and you're talking to somebody you know will understand that.
But if you use it in public, you're kind of a dick.
Yeah, that's at least the current thinking.
Many of you could disagree with that and blah, blah, blah.
You want to be able to say what you want.
You'd like to be politically incorrect.
I'm not going to argue that point.
I'm just saying that the standard in the world at the moment, you know, the standard of polite behavior is that you don't use that word in public.
It's offensive. So what did Kamala Harris say when she was challenged about, you know, saying it was well said that the president was mentally R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D? And she said that she didn't hear it.
Now, I don't think anybody believes that, right?
I don't think one person believes she didn't hear it.
It's not impossible.
You know, I've been on stage in situations where there's background noise and, you know, you're thinking about what your answer is going to be, you're not thinking about what the person's saying.
So I'm not saying it's impossible.
But it really stretches the imagination that she didn't hear it.
It is, however... A pretty good lie.
Good in terms of, it's sort of the only play she had.
Because she couldn't say, yeah, you got me.
I wish I hadn't said that.
You can't really get away with that.
So she's got to say I didn't hear it.
Now here's what I think happened.
As I said, 100% of people use that word privately.
And it doesn't mean anything bad when it's used privately.
It's just one of the words you go to when you're looking to say something about other people.
So I think when she heard it, just speculation because I can't read her mind, the most likely explanation is that when she heard it, It just felt like a word she hears in private conversation and it didn't immediately jump to her head how offensive it was.
I think she heard it in private conversation mode because she was sort of talking to one person, even though it was an event.
She was talking to one person that came out of his mouth, now hers.
I think it was just a bad moment for her.
She didn't catch it. She's just not good on her feet.
She's just not good in situations.
She's good when she's prepared, but she's not good in spontaneous situations the way Trump is.
All right. Here's something interesting in a letter.
So the Hong Kong protesters are trying to pull the United States into their fight.
Now, I suppose you could say in a way we are involved in their fight.
I just saw a funny comment that I'm not going to repeat.
Because he uses that word.
We don't use that word in public, okay?
I don't care what you do in private.
So the Hong Kong wants to pull us in, but we're sort of already in there because the President has suggested that How China treats Hong Kong, he sort of indirectly suggested that's going to have an effect on trade talks.
I don't know if he said that directly, but it's obvious in his positioning that China's entire brand and entire realm of actions are important to us.
So that's sort of indirectly saying that.
But I don't see it happening.
I don't see President Trump...
Going all in and backing Hong Kong's, what should I say, independence.
He might do it in words, he might do it in tweets, he might make statements, but I don't think this is a winnable fight.
As I've said before, You know, Hong Kong might back off on some rules about, you know, the legal system and whether China can have more of a role in it and extradite people and stuff.
but in the long run they're going to get everything admits Pulte source connected then block me okay Well, I'm going to block you for bringing that up.
Block. So the Q people, I'm just blocking all the crazy Q people today.
So I don't think President is going to get involved in Hong Kong.
I think that's a fight that cannot be won.
I think Hong Kong will eat China from the inside, and that Hong Kong could be the end of China if China isn't the end of Hong Kong.
So I think China and Hong Kong are locked in a fight to the end.
In terms of what a system emerges.
And democracy is a tricky little thing to let into your country in such a large block.
Because the pro-freedom-ish people are in Hong Kong, there are lots of them, and they're in one place, which is dangerous.
And that one place is a little bit insulated.
Not well insulated, but a little bit.
So in the long run, I don't know...
You know, which way this is going to go, I'd have to bet on China suppressing Hong Kong in the long run, just because of size and patience.
But Hong Kong could destroy China from the inside.
It's possible. Here's an interesting but preliminary scientific finding.
Some researchers were testing a drug that they hoped would regenerate the thymus gland.
So they're testing this new drug, and they accidentally discovered, this is completely accidentally, that it reversed people's epigenetic clock.
Do you know what that means?
That it reverses your epigenetic clock?
It means that on a cellular level, you got younger.
It actually reversed your age.
It didn't just slow it down.
It actually reversed it.
Two and a half years younger on average, and it was persistent.
They stayed that way. I mean, until they naturally aged.
But that was a small group.
I think it was nine people, and they'd have to do a lot more testing to find out how real that is.
But imagine the change to society.
What would happen to society if you stopped aging?
Well, first of all, what would be the cost of that drug?
It wouldn't be cheap.
But what would happen?
Would you have to work forever?
Because you couldn't retire.
You just sort of just have to work forever.
You know, we have a weird life existence now where there's so many people who are looking forward to retirement, which might be just, you know, 10 years before you die and you're old and in bad health.
We still look forward to it because it's probably better than working.
So, you know, when we do these 80-year projections of climate change, Where in your 80-year projections do you have the assumption that people become immortal?
Because I've got to feel that immortality would really have an effect on, oh, say, everything.
What happens if you're immortal and robots are doing all the work?
What happens if you're immortal and we get fusion energy working?
In 80 years, there's a chance.
Yeah, like most things of this nature, I would not trust this to be true, but it's a fun story.
Here's another fun story from the future.
Quantum radar. So, scientists have developed a working prototype of quantum radar using You know, the spooky concept of entanglement to somehow identify an aircraft and even know what kind it is.
They can tell what model the aircraft is from 60 miles out.
And it can't, at the moment, it can't be blocked, although there's some speculation that that would be possible in the future.
And it puts out a very low energy signature, so you can't even identify the radar site to take it out.
So what would happen if stealth aircraft just didn't work anymore?
Well, it just completely changes your entire defense situations.
Then what happens to Space Force?
Yeah, how does that work until this?
We got some big stuff coming.
That I don't know how important it will be.
There was also a story about a Bill Gates-backed project to seed the sky to change climate change.
Now, what people are saying is, oh no, don't have your airplanes seeding the sky with some kind of magic dust to cool the Earth, because what if you go too far and, you know, what could go wrong?
Well, what could go wrong if you destroy the entire climate of the Earth?
But here's my question on that.
So it's the right question to ask.
You know, if you put a bunch of pollution in the sky to cool down the Earth, can you reverse it?
You know, could it go too far?
And here's my take. I'm pretty sure that whatever they're talking about is temporary by nature.
In other words, I don't believe they're looking at any kind of technology that would put something in the atmosphere that stays there.
It probably is something that has to be redone every month, I would guess.
One of the benefits is really fun because one of the benefits is you could see the sky over let's say where hurricanes form because if you take down the natural temperature a few degrees where hurricanes form and you get them early they don't form or they don't form large so we actually have a technology that probably would work for slowing down hurricanes Just catch them early,
send up a bunch of planes, take down the temperature where they're forming.
Who knows? Might be worth a shot.
So let's see. I wouldn't worry about that so much because I think that...
I don't imagine there's any company that's going to start seeding the planet...
In some irreversible way.
I just don't see that as being likely.
I think that they'll test it in small places, you know, see if they can change the temperature a few degrees over some geographic area, see how long it takes for it to reverse itself.
I'm pretty sure they'll test this pretty vigorously.
And I also don't think they're necessarily going to use it until things become dire.
All right. I'm going to tell you a weird medical story that I wasn't going to tell you because medical stories are boring, but this was interesting.
I swear to God, it's an interesting medical story.
So you might know, if you've listened to me long enough, I have a bunch of weird medical issues, I guess, that turned out to be more related than I thought.
Number one, I was losing my hearing, and quite dramatically in the last few months.
And quite badly, I was losing my hearing.
It was down about, I don't know, 30-50%.
And I also have permanent allergies, but only on one side.
So I only have an allergy on this nostril.
It's there all the time, but I don't have any allergies on this nostril, ever.
What's up with that? I also lost my ability to smell.
Maybe 12 years ago, I lost my ability to smell anything.
I can't smell anything. Now, I don't have a deviated septum.
I actually had a septoplasty years ago and corrected it.
I was born with one, but I don't have one now.
So, I go to my doctor.
And I had what I thought was an ear infection affecting my hearing.
And the doctor says, oh, definitely ear infection.
Here's some meds.
So meds didn't work.
So I went back to a second doctor because mine was off that day.
Second medical doctor says, yes, looks like ear infection.
You know, we'll give you different meds for the ear infection.
It's not wax. You know, I'd removed all my ear wax.
It wasn't that. But I was still about half deaf.
And I couldn't smell.
And I had an allergy on one side.
What's up with all that?
Right? So, my second doctor sent me to an ENT, and she sticks a scope up my nose, and she says, you've got all these polyps in there.
Polyps? Yeah, P-O-L-Y-P. They're benign.
So they're not lethal or anything.
But there's some inner canal in my sinuses that connects your ear to your nasal sinuses that was filled with polyps.
And the polyps had closed that little channel, which caused my ear infections.
It caused my perpetual allergies on one side.
And it might be the cause of my not being able to smell it.
And it might be part of why, yeah, my eustachian tube.
That is correct. Polyps in my eustachian tube.
And if I had not gone to the ENT, neither of my general practitioners saw that as even an option.
But the ENT wouldn't have known it either because you can only see it if you stick the scope pretty far up into your head, through your nose.
So here's the thing.
There are meds you can take that will shrink them.
And I started taking those meds, you know, this week and almost immediately my hearing started to return.
I forgot my dose last night and I'm deaf in this ear again.
So I know that the meds are working just because I forgot one dose and it already reversed just in half a day.
So, I don't know how fixable it is or in the long run if it's fixable.
But I will tell you this, I'm taking this prednisone.
Somebody asked me about steroids in the question.
Yeah, prednisone is a kind of a steroid.
And man, are steroids awesome.
I can see why people do steroids illegally.
Because I've never had so much energy.
I just got so much done in the last few days because of the stupid prednisone.
It's just, like, great.
My workouts are amazing, you know.
Prednisone makes you eat.
I think it might, because I ate like a pig yesterday.
But it seems to be working.
So, here's the funny part.
That all of those weird symptoms...
We're probably all one thing.
And here's the payoff for the story.
Two medical doctors didn't see it.
Two trained medical doctors absolutely did not see it.
And I had to go to the next level up doctor who had a scope and had seen this very problem before and knew all about it.
Now here's the weird payoff to the story.
The weird payoff to the story is when people say that 97% of scientists agree with climate change, are those scientists like the two general practitioners who did not know that I had polyps in my eustachian tubes?
Or are 97% of those scientists who back climate change, are they more like the ENT who actually knew exactly what was going on?
Because they're all called experts, and two out of three of the experts that dealt with my ear problem completely missed it.
Now, to be fair, both of the doctors are excellent doctors, and they did exactly what they're supposed to do.
So this is not, don't interpret this as any kind of a criticism of the general practitioners.
The way the system works is that they treat the obvious thing first, as long as it's not going to hurt you to treat it.
So they do the obvious cheap thing first, and if it doesn't work, then they take it up the chain to the next expert, which is what they did.
So every part of the process worked exactly the way I would have charted it out.
That's the way it's supposed to work.
You don't expect the general practitioner to do everything the specialist does.
That said... What does it mean when 97% of scientists say climate change is a calamitous problem?
I would think that most scientists who are working in climate change are more like a general practitioner.
Meaning that they do not specialize in, let's say, reading temperatures from land thermometers.
They do not focus on satellites.
Some of them do, but I would expect most of the scientists are general practitioners.
So it means they would be relying on what they're hearing from the specialists, and the specialists are spreading across all kinds of specialties.
So a specialist on, I don't know, ocean temperatures would sort of just be a specialist on that and maybe would just be a generalist on all the other stuff.
So here's the point.
Whenever you hear 97% of scientists or doctors or anything else agree on something, you should first say in your head, okay, but I'll bet only 10% of them or fewer actually know what they're talking about.
The rest are probably just agreeing with the 10% and say, yeah, I don't see anything wrong with it.
And if that 10% says it's true, that's probably pretty reliable.
Yeah, the 97% do include the deniers.
That is correct. So it's a bogus number all the way.
But whatever that number was, or however it came about, just remember, most of those people are not experts.
They're generalists. So there seems to be some kind of media conspiracy to keep Andrew Yang out of the news.
You saw a few mentions that he wasn't even listed as being eligible for the next debate, even though he's up to 3%.
So he's beating most people.
And let me put that in perspective.
Let me put it in perspective.
So I looked at a story on CNN about Kamala Harris responding to the R-word, and I thought to myself, I think I'd like to replay that again.
So there was a video at the top of the story, and then there was the text of the story that described the R-word use and that And then she said that she didn't hear it.
So I clicked the video, and instead of a video of that event, which is the only video that should be on a story about one event, I mean, it was a story about one event.
And so I clicked the video on that one story, and it wasn't about the event.
It was like a campaign ad, an unpaid one, meaning it was just a CNN story, about how awesome Kamala Harris is.
It was a negative story about Kamala Harris that should have featured the video of the negative thing happening that would have been damning as all hell because when you see it, you know she heard it and her lie was that she didn't hear it.
But if you see it live, it's obvious she heard it.
So instead of playing that video, they substituted it for a video that was just a love letter to Kamala Harris, showing about how her career got started and how she's wonderful and showing all these great shots of her doing awesome things.
And I thought to myself, oh my freaking God, that's crazy.
Somebody says maybe she has polyps.
Maybe. Maybe she has polyps.
All right, there isn't much else going on, is there?
Why do you still watch the fake news?
Well, I know why I do it, because I talk about it.
So it's become sort of part of my job now.
By the way, my book, Loser Think, is going to the printing presses pretty soon.
It will be out on November 5th.
The early reviewers are liking it a lot, so I think you're going to like it too.
You know, when you're a book author, one of the scariest times is between the time you finish your book and the time the first people who are not your publisher are reading it.
And until you hear the first people's comments, whether they like it or not, it's really kind of a nervous time, because you don't want people to say, hey, I read your book.
And then you think, and did you like it?
But the people reading it seem to like it a lot, so I'm pretty happy about that.
The audio book will be read by me.
I'll be recording that this week.
So I go into a local studio for probably three days and I will read my own book over and over and over again because I tend to stumble on sentences when I'm reading out loud.
So it's going to be a long, long three days and I'll be happy when it's done.
How about a fitness periscope one day?
I'll do that. I will do a periscope on fitness.
Scott, can you say Yang Gang, please?
Well, there you go. Somebody says, I'm working on a book and it's hard, like really hard.
You know, I don't think anybody understands how hard it is to write a book.
And some books are harder than others.
But if you try to...
I suppose if you're writing a book about a biographical person, you'd know where the research was, and you would read it, and you'd put it together.
It seems like that would even be easier.
But writing a book which is full of largely unique ideas and humor is a really tough thing.
Oh yeah, so President Trump cancelled his meeting that we didn't know was going to happen with the Taliban and the Afghan government because the Taliban took credit for blowing something up at the same time they were trying to negotiate a peace.
I wasn't entirely sure that the president should have cancelled that.
Because he does have a...
He does have a brand where he'll talk to anybody, even the bad guys.
So if that's your brand, you know, they didn't...
It's not like the Taliban suddenly became bad that week.
And I can see why maybe they would pull back on it just because it's personally insulting to blow something up while you're on the way to a peace talk.
So I guess I can understand why he did it.
I wouldn't criticize it, but I can imagine it would have gone the other way.
Yeah.
So I can't...
I'm not sure that the Taliban leadership controls every person in the organization.
So it's not clear to me that the leaders ordered that explosion.
So that's why I'm not entirely sure they shouldn't have showed up anyway.
But we don't know everything that's going on there.
there may have been more to it Mark Sanford and now he's running against Trump as a Republican Good luck with that. Just looking at your...
looking at your comments.
All right. China continues to be a problem.
So, I'm still in favor of decoupling, and I think it's an important message for China to hear.
Imagine you're China, and you're monitoring opinion in the United States.
And I assume they do that, right?
Wouldn't you assume that China is monitoring, you know, at least the major pundit opinions in the United States?
It would seem that they would be watching any hashtags That would be referring to them.
So, chances are I have reached their attention at some point, as has Kyle Bass, as has Gordon Chang.
And as people like us start calling for a decoupling, meaning to discontinue trade with China, not right away.
It doesn't have to be tomorrow, but we should, as a national security interest, make sure that we're dealing with countries that know how to do business the way we need to do business.
And China doesn't do business in a way that could be internationally acceptable.
It's not honorable.
It's not honest.
And it doesn't work in the realm of business because you need a certain amount of trust to have a commercial enterprise.
So I want to make sure that they know that there's some people that others are listening to who are saying decoupling has to be on the table.
And decoupling would probably be a big disaster for China and probably wouldn't make much difference to us.
In the long run, we'd probably get products that are cheaper to ship because it would end up being produced closer to home.
Somebody says that meeting with Taliban leadership was probably secret to most Taliban.
That's probably true, right?
So the Taliban themselves probably did not know that there was a peace talk going on.
So I doubt there was ever any communication between the leader who was going to the peace plan or the peace meeting and whoever the idiot was who blew up the thing.
So it was probably a separation of communication there.
Yeah, other people are saying it's too close to 9-1-1 anniversary.
You know, I honestly think that's the stuff we shouldn't care about.
I get it.
I get it. But what would be a better way to honor, you know, honor the dead than to be working hard at trying to make sure the situation didn't happen again?
I don't know.
I don't think we should be bothered by things that are so just image-wise.
I would be bothered if it mattered to the outcome, but I don't think it does.
Block the haters.
One last hater.
Where is the slaughter meter?
Slaughter meter is at 100%.
Right now there's nobody in the mix who seems to be competitive.
I think that Warren has taken herself out of the mix with her anti-nuclear stance because she's in a ridiculous situation where her biggest priority, climate change, she's not doing the only thing that you could do to address it.
And even people on the left, even people she's running with or against on the Democrat side, Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, the people who have actually looked into it.
If two of the smartest people in your group, literally the smartest, you know, if you're going to measure your IQ, Cory Booker is going to be like right at the top.
He's like, was he a Rhodes Scholar or something?
I mean, Cory Booker is seriously smart.
Andrew Yang, seriously smart.
I mean, these are really smart people.
If they're saying nuclear has to be part of the deal, and Warren is not, she doesn't even have her own team on her side.
And the ones that disagree with her, unfortunately, are the ones who looked into it.
It would be one thing if the people who disagreed with her were partisans or they were idiots or they hadn't looked into it, etc.
You know, Joe Biden, don't you imagine Joe Biden hasn't really looked into it, right?
When was the last time Joe Biden got a detailed update on nuclear power?
I mean, I'm sure he's been updated lots of times in the past, probably not recently.
So it would be one thing if Biden disagreed with you.
That wouldn't mean as much. But if your two unambiguously smartest, you know, young, most tapped-in members of your own team are saying you're freaking crazy because you can't do it without nuclear, she doesn't have anything.
It's her biggest thing and she has nothing.
So that's bad.
We hear today that she's getting advice from Hillary Clinton.
I think that story is overdone.
Meaning that my guess is that any association between Warren and Hillary Clinton is probably minor.
I do believe that if I were to guess, I would imagine that Hillary wants either Harris or Warren to win.
Probably. Just a guess.
And it does seem like Warren is sort of an improved version of Hillary.
Like, if you started with Hillary...
And you could remove all of her scandals.
What would you have?
You'd have Elizabeth Warren, right?
So I like to do this experiment.
I did this with Biden and Trump.
If you start with Trump and you remove from Trump everything that makes him good and interesting, what would you have left?
All the things that made him funny, interesting, everything that gives him charisma, everything that makes him powerful and effective, if you took all of that away from him, you'd have Joe Biden.
Right? Just think about it.
Everything interesting, just taken away from Trump, that you have Biden.
Now start with Hillary Clinton and remove everything from her that's a scandal.
All the, you know, all the assumptions about the Clinton Foundation, the, you know, the alleged dead bodies, which I don't believe, but, you know, all the things that people say about Hillary Clinton.
If you remove all that from Hillary Clinton, what's left?
It's Elizabeth Warren, right?
She's basically clean Hillary.
You know, sure, you got the Pocahontas thing, but that's just silliness.
I mean, at worst, it looks like an honest mistake.
At worst. And a small one at that.
So, the Pocahontas thing isn't going to be enough to take her down.
And it will seem so overplayed and nothing by the time Election Day that nobody's going to care about it.
Now I have to wonder if those who have helped Hillary Clinton will be helping Elizabeth Warren.
Now we've heard that Harris was getting some of the old Hillary Clinton advisors, so there might be somewhat of a split there.
But I'm going to be paying attention to see if Elizabeth Warren's persuasion game suddenly goes up.
Because, you know, that happened with Hillary, and I speculated that it's because she got a good advisor who I called Godzilla, the Godzilla of persuasion.
Now, if the Godzilla of persuasion, or somebody that he trained, gets associated with Warren, you should expect to see her persuasion game go through the roof and somewhat instantly.
So if you see an instant change in her persuasion, It means she's got an advisor, and it's going to be a good one, if it happens.
▲
Export Selection