Episode 809 Scott Adams: Iowa Caucus, "Sloppiest Train Wreck in History," Schiff Sells Alaska to Russia
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
Iowa Democrat caucus screwup
Who built Iowa caucus app that screws Bernie's momentum?
Adam Schiff fears President Trump will sell Alaska to Russia
China bans my book, Win Bigly
Nicolle Wallace STILL spreading debunked Charlottesville HOAX
Rush Limbaugh's announcement yesterday
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I'd like to start by giving you the Iowa election results.
I believe they're in here.
Somewhere in here.
I've got all the Iowa caucus results.
No, I don't have them yet.
But nobody else has them either.
So I guess I'm no worse than anybody else, am I? Oh, I know why you're here.
You're here for endless laughs about the hilarious incompetence of the Democrats in Iowa.
And we're going to bring that.
Don't worry. If you came here to mock the Democrats in Iowa, Came to the right place.
We're going to do that.
But first, you might want to enjoy the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like my coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the thing that makes everything better, the dopamine here of the day, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Mmm.
Tastes like caucus.
All right, where to begin?
Where to begin? So you all know that the Iowa results, the Iowa caucuses, didn't go as well as anybody hoped.
I don't know how long it's going to take before I stop laughing about this whole situation, but it's not going to happen soon.
Let's just run through the jokes.
The hardest part of my morning today was organizing all the jokes, because I couldn't stop thinking of funny things about Iowa, and I started writing them down and tweeting about them, and I thought, my God, I've got too many jokes about Iowa.
I'm going to have to organize these by alphabetical or something.
But let's just run through a few.
First of all, how long does it take to rig a vote against Bernie?
I mean, really? Shouldn't take that long.
Don't they just subtract a little from Bernie, add it to whoever they want?
So, I'm not gonna say, you know, I'm not gonna allege that this is all a big way to rig the vote against Bernie.
I will simply note That if you were going to bet, let's say predict it had a betting market, and let's say that a week ago the bet had been this.
The bet is that if there's a major technical screw-up in the Iowa caucuses, so imagine this is a week ago and you had this option, and you knew there was going to be a big screw-up, or if there were a big screw-up, would it work against Bernie Sanders' interest or for his interest?
Yeah, you know where I'm going here.
It could be just a technical mistake, just like they say.
Could be just the system didn't work as well as they'd hoped, and it'll take a while to sort it out.
Could be. But why are all the mistakes against Bernie Sanders in one way or another?
Is that a coincidence?
It could be. It could be a coincidence, but it's a funny one.
Alright, so I've got a question for you.
How are the Iowa caucus results like the Bloomberg box?
I'll let you think about it.
How are the Iowa caucus results like the Bloomberg box?
The answer? We're sure they both exist, but we can't see them.
Alright, moving on.
If Democrats win the presidency and overhaul the healthcare system in the United States, will that involve any apps?
Because I'm a little worried now about my healthcare system being run by the people who couldn't make an app that counts.
Now, I'm no expert app maker.
Actually, I've been involved in making a bunch of apps, but I feel as though counting is one of the easier things an app can do.
Now, I know it has to count and put them in different buckets, but it's still basically counting.
Now, there's some reporting, and I don't think you should assume that anything is accurate in the first 24 hours, But there's some reporting that maybe the problem with the app was the volume, that too many people used it at once, to which I say, nobody saw that coming?
When they were making that app, was there anybody in the meeting who said, we've tested our app with two or three users at the same time, but I think during the Iowa caucuses, we might have more traffic than that.
Do you think we should make sure that we're architected so we could handle lots of simultaneous traffic?
I don't know. It seems like a question I would have asked if I'd been in the meeting.
So I'm not sure it was really the volume that made the difference, but that's some of the unreliable early reporting.
Did it feel to you like the general election was over last night?
Did you have that feeling?
I felt as though the general election, the election in which Trump will run against the eventual nominee, I feel like it was decided last night.
Now, of course, it's too early, you know, and so many things could change before Election Day.
But if you were to have the election today, Pick your Democrat.
Pick your favorite, strongest Democrat, and hold the election today.
Trump is the Republican, and you take your strongest Democrat, but you have to hold the election today.
What's the result?
Well, if it's today, I think there are a lot of people, Democrats, who...
I have this theory about some percentage of the Democrats.
And, you know, this is not everybody, so it's a sort of a gross generality.
It doesn't mean every individual.
But I feel as though the Democrats who support Bernie and Elizabeth Warren, in particular, that they live in two worlds simultaneously.
There's one world in which Bernie, his policies make sense, and they all add up.
But there's another world that I think they live in simultaneously, in which they know it wouldn't work.
Now, I might be wrong, because again, you don't know what's in people's minds, but it looks like they simultaneously prefer Bernie and also know that his policies couldn't possibly work.
It feels like it.
Because I don't know how they could not be aware of that.
You know, There are enough Democrats who are saying it that it seems like everybody would be aware of it.
So this is one of those situations where it collapses one of the two movies.
Because the whole argument about Bernie...
Stay with me here.
The argument for Bernie, the best argument you could make, is that he is capable beyond your imagination.
You get that, right?
Because if Bernie...
If he had ordinary capability, he wouldn't be able to do something as extraordinary as what he's proposing, which is transforming the economy, cancelling student debt, raising taxes on the rich, free college, and all the other stuff.
Free healthcare. The only way to do that stuff is if you were really, really capable at making a system work, a complicated system.
Now, after last night, who among you believes that the Democrats, any of them, have the capability to make a complicated system run like a clock?
Nobody. And it's not even fair.
So I'm not saying that there's anything about this Iowa situation that should be generalized.
I'm just saying it will be.
So there's no reason to think this one-off mistake says anything about Democrats or says anything about the candidates or anything about anything.
It's probably just a one-off.
But it doesn't feel that way because of the timing, the attention.
Now, here are a That really stick out.
First impressions are really sticky.
You know that, right? You know it from human interactions when you have a first impression of a person, first impression of a candidate, a first impression of anything.
It's really sticky. It's hard to change that.
Iowa is our first impression of the professional DNC machine and Democrats as a brand.
Our first impression Was complete failure.
First impressions are really, really sticky.
This thing is going to dog them.
If this had been the, you know, let's say the fourth state, it kind of wouldn't matter, would it?
It's only because it's first that it has this big hold on our imaginations.
The other thing that captures our imagination is exceptions.
You don't remember or note things that are just the way they're supposed to be, because your brain can't process everything that happens.
It's only looking for exceptions.
So Iowa is two things that are the worst things for the Democrats.
It's first, so that first impression for the season is sticky, but it's also a weird exception, and it really captures your imagination, and we're really going to look at it as an exception.
It's like, what went wrong? Why are they doing this?
Lots of questions. So all of our focus is, at least until there's another primary, are just drilled down onto the exception and the fact it was first.
The general election might be over.
Because this is such a damning thing.
Let me ask you this.
Let's say a genie appears and finds a typical Democrat voter.
Maybe it's a Bernie voter.
Maybe it's an Elizabeth Warren voter.
But it's just a voter for the most progressive policies.
And the genie says this.
There's going to be a system in this country.
I won't tell you which one.
The only thing you get to decide is who gets to run the system.
Do you want a Democrat to be in charge of running it?
Let's say with the efficiency that Democrats run major cities in this country, or the efficiency that they ran the Iowa caucus.
You can have a Democrat, or you can have a Republican.
Even if you're a Democrat, Who do you want running the system?
Remember, you don't even know what the system is, so you don't know if it's one you like or one you don't like, but you do know you want it to run well, whatever the system is.
As a Democrat, who do you pick, if nobody's watching, so you can just be honest, who do you pick to run your complicated system?
Probably a business person.
Probably somebody with a lot of experience.
I feel like Republicans, because they just sort of chug along doing things correctly, I don't think Republicans get as much credit as they earn by simply making things run smoothly.
The GOP has a pretty well-oiled machine, and I think people are noticing.
Now, here's another irony, because the simulation is just serving up all kinds of delicious things.
Who was the one Democrat who was running for president who could have made an app that worked?
It's the only one who didn't go.
Mike Bloomberg. Well, okay.
Somebody said Yang. Yang could have made an app that worked.
Yes, that's correct. But...
Bloomberg certainly could have gotten an app working because he has a, you know, trillion dollar company that makes apps and software and does lots of stuff for its own purposes.
I think Bloomberg could have made an app that worked, but I don't think anybody asked him.
And Yang could have too.
Yang had one of the best responses.
Basically suggesting that he's the kind of president that would make this sort of thing go away, because he knows technology.
So that was good.
All right.
Here's a...
Contrast is another persuasion concept that comes into play.
And imagine, if you will, that you're looking at the Iowa, let's say, the digital part of the Iowa caucus.
Who do you compare that to just automatically in your head?
What's the natural comparison?
Because we always compare things.
You can't turn that off.
We are a comparing, pattern-looking kind of species.
So in my mind, I somewhat irrationally compare the Iowa digital app people to the Republican effort that I know that does digital stuff, and I think of Brad Parscale's group.
Now, Brad Parscale is head of the campaign, as I understand it, but their digital part of their campaign is considered the most world-class, amazing thing that's happened in the history of this stuff.
So, unfortunately, not only did Iowa fail in their technology, but your brain automatically compares it to the Darth Vader of digital work.
You know, I mean that in a good way, not in a bad way.
The good Darth Vader reference.
Meaning that Pascal, he's like a monster of competence and success in that field.
And unfortunately, he's going to be the natural comparison to this little failure.
So I loved what the Trump campaign said about this.
Now, the quote I'm going to give you was not attributed to anybody specifically.
I pulled this off of Fox News' website.
But the quote from the Trump campaign was, quote, Democrats are stewing in a caucus mess of their own creation with the sloppiest train wreck in history.
Oh my God, who wrote that sentence?
I'm gonna read that sentence at least two more times because it's delicious.
Yeah, somebody in the comments, you know exactly where I'm going.
This is so visual.
It's not just visual, but feel the words.
Feel the sound of the words.
And how perfect the sentence is.
Now, I assume this was a written statement, it looks like.
So I'll read it again.
Democrats are stewing in a caucus mess of their own creation with the sloppiest train wreck in history.
Do you know what's right with that sentence?
Everything. Everything.
Whoever wrote this sentence knows how to write a sentence.
This is like...
This is a 10 out of 10 for a sentence.
See, what's right about it is it's very visual.
You can see the train wreck.
But when they add sloppy, a sloppy train wreck, you almost can hear it, can you not?
If you imagine a train wreck, the first thing you imagine, metal and steel, crash, crash, crash, you know, that's what a train wreck would sound like.
But when they add sloppy, it almost sounds like dropping a bunch of watermelons on a hard floor.
You know, just like falling apart, sloppy.
So there's something about the word sloppy that modifies train wreck In a way that's just genius, frankly.
And then it also says Democrats are stewing in a caucus mess.
You can actually see the stew in that sentence.
You can actually see it.
It's like this big pot of blech, and they're in there, and they're just soaking in the bile of the stew.
So, A-plus for that sentence.
All right. Democrats want to run health care.
I wasn't the first one to say it, but I raced to be the first.
And I lost. I thought to myself, I'm going to be the first one to say that if they can't run this Iowa caucus, how are they going to run health care for the nation?
And I typed out my little tweet, and I thought, I'm first.
I'm first. And then I go on to Twitter, and Ted Cruz beat me to it by, I don't know, hours or something.
So that wasn't my best joke.
Ted Cruz beat me to it.
But good work, Ted Cruz.
So here's what's fascinating about it.
There's a lot that's interesting about this Iowa situation.
We could talk about it forever.
There's just so many elements to it.
But here's my take on it.
Bernie was supposed to win.
It should have been a big launch point, a big moment for Bernie.
And then Bernie would go to New Hampshire, and presumably because it's close to Vermont, he would win again.
Then you would have Bernie with two solid wins going into the third one.
That would probably help Bernie a lot in the third election.
Now, so it should have been Bernie all the way for the first three.
Instead, by coincidence, an app that was built by, let's see, who built the app that failed?
Just guessing.
Oh, yes. A bunch of Hillary Clinton huge supporters.
Huh. So Hillary Clinton supporters built an app that screwed Bernie.
What are the odds of that?
So Bernie not only doesn't get the first win, but here's the diabolical part.
Should he go ahead and win in New Hampshire, what are people going to say?
Well, he was supposed to win there.
So if he doesn't get the first win...
The second win isn't going to look important, because getting two in a row in our minds feels like, whoa, there's momentum, two in a row, first two.
It's the first two, and he got them both.
That would mean a lot to you.
But suppose Iowa is inconclusive, and then he goes and he does win the second one, but the second one's going to feel like he was supposed to win anyway.
It's his home field.
People are just going to discount it.
He's going to go into the third state with nothing instead of everything.
That is a big change in history, and it was done by...
Who made that app again?
I forget. Oh, yeah.
Big Hillary Clinton supporters made that app.
Well, we found out who is the smartest candidate who campaigned in Iowa.
Who was the smartest person in Iowa?
This is an easy question.
I think your comments are a little behind, so I'll just give you the answer.
Pete Buttigieg, let me give you this advice.
Should you ever find yourself in a situation where there's been some kind of a contest or a vote, and you're in it, and the result is ambiguous?
And it looks like it might always be ambiguous.
What should you do in that situation?
Here's my advice.
Go full Buttigieg.
Buttigieg just showed he's the smartest guy in the race because he did the smartest thing.
Oh, Amy Klobuchar. You're right.
Amy Klobuchar was also brilliant because she got out there early.
So the two smartest people in the race, Buttigieg and Klobuchar, Klobuchar for going first and getting the attention.
I mean, it was so smart because the news was all geared up for this coverage and they had nothing to talk about.
So Klobuchar says, well, I'll give them something to talk about.
So she goes out and gives a talk in front of a crowd and she gets all the attention.
But Buttigieg took it one level further.
He claimed victory.
He claimed victory.
Now, is that legitimate?
Don't know. We don't know what the results are.
Maybe he won big. Maybe he didn't.
We don't know. But I will tell you one thing.
I wouldn't want a president who wasn't smart enough to claim victory and leave town.
Would you? I gotta say, and I've said this before, There's a lot you can say to criticize the Democratic field, but if you were to look at the larger group of people, not all of them made it to the big stage, but if you were to look at the larger group of Democrats who were running for president, it's a really smart group.
They actually are, I mean, academically, if we're talking academically, it's a super smart group of people, Buttigieg being probably near the top of that group.
So he claims victory and moves on.
He's the smartest guy.
I declare him the smartest one.
Here's another interesting factoid about this.
Since the beginning, when we saw Biden leading in the polls, what have I been saying, provocatively?
I've been saying, have any of you ever met a Biden supporter?
Because it seems like I've met every other kind of supporter.
Yang is way down in the polls, but I meet Yang supporters all the time.
Don't you meet Yang supporters all the time?
You see them online.
You see them in person.
Very common. Bernie supporters all the time.
I see Bernie supporters everywhere.
They talk to me. They're on TV. Joe Rogan is supporting them.
Very common. Have you ever met a Joe Biden supporter?
Now, I don't know why, but I haven't.
I haven't met one in person.
I have not met one single Joe Biden supporter in person.
And I wondered, you know, of course you think in terms of conspiracy theories because that's the world we live in.
And I thought to myself, what are the odds That there never was any polling for Joe Biden and all the polls are just rigged.
Is that possible?
I don't think it's possible because there should be enough polling companies that if any one of them got a different result, it would be obvious that the game was over.
So it doesn't seem possible.
But am I wrong about that?
I'll make this a question.
So it's not an allegation, it's a question.
It's somewhat coincidental that the very day we were going to find out if the polling about Biden was in the ballpark, because we would have an actual vote for the first time and it would be harder to fake that, the very time we were going to find this out, the vote gets messed up and we can't find it out.
Now, is it possible that the New Hampshire primary will happen before we know what happened in Iowa?
Because it almost feels like if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that the polls have all been rigged to keep Biden in the race.
But I don't think that's physically, mathematically, practically possible.
But if anybody has a theory how that could have happened, let me know.
I just don't think it's possible.
Jeffrey Toobin. Over at CNN, points out that Iowa's a terrible place for Democrats to have their first contest because it's 90% white.
It's not a bad point, but it also turns it into a race thing.
And I don't think you can ignore that.
I mean, it's a reasonable thing to say, especially for the first one.
It's reasonable to say that your first one should represent the country and not have crazy rules and stuff.
So the point is well taken.
But why is it everything turns into race?
The Democrats have a terrible problem with their own philosophies because they have to grapple with their own problems of being woke enough.
All right, here's a very interesting comment by Twitter user Banzai Sharma, who points out to me and sent me a video of Joe Biden.
He was leaving some retail business in Iowa before the votes, and somebody asked him about his chances.
And Joe said that he'd survive, that he would survive Iowa.
And I thought to myself, well, there's a winner.
That's how winners talk.
I'll survive? What kind of a statement is that?
Now, as Banzai Sharma points out, I have taught you before that people reveal what they're really thinking in their choice of words.
In other words, if you look at the full sentence, it could be that the sentence says one thing, But when you look at the choice of words, they're actually telling you something else.
In this case, it's an unusual choice of words to say survival.
Survive isn't a winning word.
It's not what candidates usually say.
They say, we're going to do great.
We'll get our share of votes.
We're going to win it on the next one.
We're just getting stronger.
That's how normal candidates talk.
But Joe Biden actually used the word survive.
And Banzai Sharma points out, Correctly, I think, that that's a strong indicator that what he's thinking about is his own mortality.
And remember, we know that because he brought it up.
We don't have to read his mind.
When he talked about who he would have for a vice president, he said somebody young because he's an older guy.
I don't know how to interpret an older guy other than he might not be around that long, right?
So I think Joe Biden is literally thinking about surviving more than he's thinking about winning.
So that's a bad look.
Chris Matthews, over on MSNBC, basically said he thinks that if Bernie is the nominee, that the Democrats have no chance at all.
I don't know.
If you see people like Chris Matthews, who is no Republican, if you see him saying that Bernie is just...
I think he likened him to an old man in the park with communist or socialist literature.
So even the Democrats are pretty sad now.
Did you catch the...
The news about Adam Schiff when he was giving his closing argument there in the impeachment, which seems, it feels like it's already over, but it's not.
And he was using a hypothetical saying that if Trump is allowed to continue in office and he gets emboldened by not being impeached and all of his quid pro quos, that he, quote, could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for sport in the next election.
Or to decide to move to Mar-a-Lago permanently and leave Jared Kushner to run the country, delegating to him the decision whether they go to war.
What? Now, his point, of course, is that presidents need to have limits, and that if the president can do anything that's not illegal, and apparently it wouldn't be illegal, according to Schiff, To offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support in the next election.
But I have to ask myself, is that something a president can do?
Can presidents sell off states?
I'm not an expert in this, but I don't think a president can sell off a state, even if they want to, even if they get a good price.
I'm almost positive you'd have to get the Congress involved.
Am I wrong about that?
Wouldn't the public have something to say about, and maybe the Alaskans themselves might have something to say about selling their state to Russia?
Now, of course, Schiff didn't mean it literally, but if he didn't mean it literally, why is he saying it?
Because he's doing what should be a credible argument in front of the public in the most solemn situation you could ever have.
If it's solemn and important and it's in front of the Senate, in front of the country, Is he supposed to just make up crazy stuff?
Right? I don't think he's supposed to make up crazy stuff.
Anyway, here's what I think will happen.
Because you know that facts and truth don't matter, I think you're going to see that Adam Schiff, his statement about the president hypothetically doing that, is going to quickly morph into Adam Schiff saying we should sell Alaska to Russia.
Do you see that happening?
Even though he was talking about a potential future Trump doing it, it feels like the topic is getting paired with Schiff, not Trump, because Trump didn't have anything to do with it.
It's not something he talked about, thought about, joked about, tweeted about.
He has nothing to do with it.
But you see Adam Schiff talk about it, and you see the topic, and you say to yourself, does Adam Schiff want to sell Alaska to the Russians?
Does he think that's possible?
Of course not. But he's pairing himself with that idea, which is crazy.
Here's a little update.
I was reading an article in NewYorker.com about China disallowing some translated books into the country.
So first the books get translated and then they're published.
And I'm reading this article and it turns out to be about me.
I hate it when that happens.
Sometimes I just want to read the news about other people, and I read the news like, oh crap, this one's about me.
And the news was this.
My book, Win Bigly, is being banned in China.
That's right. China finally figured out who I am.
I don't know how long ago they figured that out, but it's probably no coincidence.
That mine was on the list of books that got banned.
Now when I say banned, I don't mean that they say that explicitly.
Apparently the way they do it is my book has already been translated and it's ready to go.
And they just put a hold on it forever.
So that's how they ban it.
They just don't execute and put it into the market.
So that's the report from the translators that mine is in that category.
And the reporting said it's They don't say why they do it, but it's obvious it's the trade war.
To which I say, no, that's not that obvious.
I wouldn't say it's just the trade war.
I would say it's because I've hashtagged fentanyl China into existence.
I would say it's because I have argued in favor of decoupling.
I would say that I've called it a dictatorship.
I talk about the imprisonment of the Uyghurs on a fairly regular basis.
I talk about Hong Kong.
And I certainly talk about all of their badness in general.
And of course now the virus, the coronavirus.
I don't know how many reasons China has to ban my book, but I've given them quite a few.
And now, now that I'm on their radar...
Hi, China.
Hi. Hi.
I am gonna fuck you up.
You think I'm done, China?
I'm not done. I'm just starting.
Just getting started.
And you fuckers are gonna find out later.
Alright, so now me and China.
It was personal when they killed my stepson with fentanyl.
But it's a little bit more personal now.
So if you think I was going to go hard at them before, well, you haven't seen anything.
Gordon Chang, who's an expert on China and things over there, Is speculating, and I think it's speculation, he says it with some confidence, but it sounds like speculation, that China might be overwhelmed with the volume of coronavirus victims and dead bodies, that the count is low because they just can't count them.
Because people are dying at home because there's no hospital to go to.
So if somebody dies at home because they couldn't go to the hospital, how do they get counted?
If the system is overloaded, there may be no way to know.
So, we're still waiting for that.
Here's a question I have.
Didn't China complain that the United States wasn't helping?
I think we've offered help, have we not?
But, as long as they're sending fentanyl to this country, I have mixed feelings about helping them with this coronavirus.
I think for humanitarian reasons, if we had a way to do it, we'd have to do it.
I'd be okay with that.
But I hate helping somebody who's actively trying to kill you.
It's a hard one, but your morality might require that.
Alright, what else we got going on?
I'm going to make sure I've hit all of my exciting topics.
I think I have. Getting there.
So, Nicole Wallace over on MSNBC once again spread the find people hoax on TV. Amazing.
What do you make of somebody like Nicole Wallace still saying that the president called the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville fine people?
It's the most widely debunked hoax of all time.
You could probably find more links debunking that hoax and easily debunked.
Just show the video. Show the transcript.
It's right there. You don't have to be a researcher to find it.
And she still says it like it's true.
And I actually can't tell if she thinks it's true.
This was a tough one.
My guess is that she believes it because it would be way too professionally embarrassing to say something so obviously false if you knew it was false.
So I have to think she actually doesn't know, which tells you what kind of a bubble she's in.
All right, other big news, and this is not happy news.
Most of you have heard by now that Rush Limbaugh has announced that he has lung cancer, and apparently not early stage, so it sounds like it's pretty bad.
And he's going to try to work as he can while treating it, etc., so he'll miss some work.
And it was very interesting to hear people talk about him.
You know, a number of people who are weighing in to say nice things about him.
And one of the words that I keep hearing is generous.
How generous he was.
You know, people talk about how talented he is, etc.
He's wildly talented.
But generous is an interesting word.
It's one of the words that, you know, if you're that age...
And people are independently describing you and just on their own, the first word they think about you is generous.
Boy, you've lived a good life.
I mean, you've done something right if the first word that people think about you after 69 years of life on this earth is generous.
That's pretty good. And what's interesting is I was actually going to use the same word about him because he's been very generous to me Lately, said very nice things about my work and read my tweets in the last couple of weeks online.
And amazingly, I was actually going to, independently, I was going to use the same word and call him generous, because he was generous to me.
He didn't ask anything in return, didn't ask me for a favor.
He just said nice things about my work and gave me more attention.
And it was exactly the word I had for it, which was, oh, that was quite generous.
Now, he has lung cancer, which normally you would think would be the worst possible situation.
The rates of lung cancer historically are very low.
But let me give you this little bit of hope.
There's some new stuff for treating cancers, and lung cancers in particular.
I actually know somebody who had lung cancer and recovered.
It's possible. People do have lung cancer recover.
But I think way more people are recovering today than have ever recovered because they've got some new ways to treat stuff.
I'm no expert on it. But I don't think you should automatically assume that somebody with his access to all the best, newest, best experts, best everything, I wouldn't assume that this is going to end poorly for him.
It might not. So, I think we have a cause for some, let's say, cautious optimism that the best healthcare in the world, because he's going to have the best healthcare in the world on a problem that is starting to yield to that technology.
So, let's hope he hit the window, because, you know, someday, I don't think lung cancer will even be Even considered a death threat.
And I think that could happen in my lifetime, if not yours.
So, if you're seeing I'm having lots of problems with my so-called allergies, it's because my polyps came back, so I'm going to have to have surgery to get rid of them.
