All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
47:38
Episode 913 Scott Adams: Was LIVE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Jack!
I'm sorry.
Come on in. Yes, this is the place to come at this time of night so that you can get all of the cares and tensions of the world drained out of your overstressed body.
Today, and for the next, oh, let's say 45 minutes, it's nothing but good times.
We're going to put things in perspective.
We're going to make you feel better, make you feel relaxed.
I've got a little observation for you.
And I don't know what to make of it yet.
It goes like this.
I was watching Obama do his recommendation for Biden.
And you know that I've commented how Dr.
Birx has up-talk.
Now up-talk is where you end the sentence with a little bit of an up.
So it makes you sound, maybe like a violent girl, and when you do the up-talk, you don't sound as confident, because you're sort of asking, you're making statements, but you're making statements that sound like a question.
But have you ever noticed Obama?
Obama does down-talk.
So Obama's last word is always the deeper word.
I'd never noticed that until I was watching him today, so I'll give you my Obama impression.
We've got here the back scratcher and have a remote control.
But you could take your Apple earbuds and you could pair it with your mechanical pen.
Listen to him and listen to how he finishes on a confident low note.
And I thought to myself, I think that's really effective.
And I also ask myself if I do it.
And I don't know.
Probably because I'm thinking about it, I'll either do it or I'll conceal how much I do it or don't do it.
So maybe you could tell me.
Well, this is a question, so I'm going to up-talk the question.
Do I up-talk?
Have you ever heard me up-talk when I'm making statements, not questions?
And have you ever noticed me, because I really don't know, do I down-talk on the last word?
Do I give you a sentence, and then I'm talking like this?
Because it makes me sound confident, because I'm starting the sentence, and you say, what's it all about?
And I finish it fast, I finish it hard, I finish it strong, because I'm coming in and I'm just laying it down there, just putting it down there, finishing down.
Somebody says, no, you don't.
I think you mean, no, I don't up-talk.
Oh, look what I did.
I automatically did a down-talk.
I think I'm going to practice that.
Speaking of people who have interesting ways of speaking, one of my favorite TV senators, and maybe one of yours as well, is Senator Kennedy.
You know, Senator Kennedy, he's got, I don't know what state he's from, he's got an accent.
And it makes him sound, I assume it's southern, it's a little bit slower, it's interesting to listen to.
And when he's talking, between the fact that what he says tends to be very clever, often funny, and because he says it in a certain way, And there's a variation in the way he talks.
You can't look away when he's on television.
Because something interesting is going to happen.
And I was watching him on, I think it was on Martha McCallum's show, on Fox.
And he was making the case for why he thinks, essentially, that the virus came from a Wuhan biological lab of some sort, as opposed to A wet market.
And one of the things I do appreciate about our elected officials is that while I normally hate the fact that so many of them are lawyers, I feel like we have too many lawyers.
Some lawyers, very good.
You know, a few lawyers.
You want some good advice.
Lawyers are smart.
They're solid thinkers. But certainly there's too much of a good thing sometimes, right?
I mean, you could have too many lawyers, and I would argue, you know, maybe we've reached that level.
But that said, the ones who are good enough lawyers that they become well-known, run for office, and win, tend to be pretty good lawyers.
And so when you watch me say Lindsey Graham...
You know, argue something on TV or you're watching Senator Kennedy.
They just do a really good job of making a case in a way that other people just aren't as clever.
So here's some of the evidence, and you can make up your own mind.
So Senator Kennedy says, and I think this is a fact, he says as a fact, I know that there was a study and an article that alleges this is a fact, but I'm going to say I'm skeptical of this fact.
I'm not skeptical of his overall conclusion, but this fact has me with a little bit of skepticism.
And the fact is, somebody said that there weren't any bats at the Wuhan wet markets.
And so the implication is, the virus could not have spread from a bat to a human in the wet market because of the wet market, because there were no bats there to do that.
Now, I feel as if, I just feel as if that might not be true.
Maybe there was a bat or two.
Now, that doesn't mean it came from the bat.
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that, I don't know, would China make up a cover story that couldn't be possible because there were no bats?
Maybe, because whatever they did is pretty remarkable.
You almost can't put anything past them.
But let's take Senator Kennedy's case.
He alleges that it's known that there were no bats.
Let's see. And there was a lab nearby, and there's the story in the Washington Post that says there was some kind of a report a few years ago that that lab had coronavirus, it had the virus, and it had... Insufficient safety guidelines and safety protocols and stuff.
So apparently it was known that that lab had this stuff and that it could get out and it was a known problem that had been written up and there weren't any bats there at the wet market.
We also know Is it true that the doctors who originally reported this sort of either died or disappeared?
Aren't there a bunch of people who died or disappeared?
And didn't China say we can't look into it?
There's no more looking into it.
And didn't China say that it wasn't transferable from person to person, from human to human?
It sort of adds up.
I don't know how it could be.
And they also closed Wuhan at the same time they were saying it was no big deal.
They totally closed their city.
It's no big deal.
If you're wondering about the timing, I think it was January 23rd they closed Wuhan, and the very next day, which was probably the next periscope I did, I assume, I called for closing travel.
So the moment that China said, we're going to close Wuhan, I said, okay, I'm done.
I do not need to see any additional information.
If somebody has some kind of a virus and they blockade their entire city, what other questions do you need to ask to know that it's time to close down the airports?
I mean, that's what I said.
You know, you can say to yourself, Scott, the experts and the CDC and the World Health Organization and China, to which I say, did you hear the part about China closed a major city?
You couldn't even get in or out because of a virus.
That's killing people.
If you tell me you need to study this a little bit longer...
I don't think you heard this part.
China closed a major city.
They didn't let people travel in and out.
No extra study required.
Close the airport.
Now that some time has gone by, those of you who...
Some of you sort of remember the moment.
You remember the...
My rant. And now you can see it in hindsight, and you can see how accurate that was.
Anyway, so here's some questions for you.
Will President Xi remain in power?
Now, obviously, he has a pretty good grip on the country.
He's a dictator in practical terms.
So there's certainly no political process.
For removing him.
I suppose if the party wanted to remove him, they could.
But I don't see that as being likely in their system.
But here's the thing.
The coronavirus scandal just went from, we're accusing you, you're denying it, to another level, wouldn't you say?
Wouldn't you say...
Wouldn't you say...
We'll get rid of this critic.
Wouldn't you say that China has a big scandal now and that we're past the point of questioning whether they're responsible in a very bad way?
But that's not the real problem for China.
You know, it's bad to have a bad reputation.
But isn't this going to cause all of the major countries that were victims of this to decouple?
The United States, I'm sure, is going to decouple.
I don't know how quickly, who's going to pay for it, what it looks like, but it's the beginning and the end.
There's not any question that the United States is going to have less business there, not more.
I think the same probably with Japan, and I would expect some of the European countries to follow.
So it seems to me that the only path that China has is economic catastrophe.
I think the United States will climb onto this pretty readily.
If you want to feel good about the United States, here's a little fact that I heard from Peter Navarro, who, by the way, was excellent on television today.
Have you listened to Peter Navarro just talk on a news show?
I don't know if he's always this good, because I haven't really paid attention to him, but he gave...
Just one of the best TV interviews you'll ever see.
It wasn't flashy, so maybe it didn't take note.
Maybe nobody noticed. But the clarity of his thought and the precision in which he just presented things in a simple way for the public was really good.
A-plus. Peter Navarro.
Anyway... So it seems...
I don't know why I was even talking about Peter Navarro.
There was some point there, but...
Oh, I was going to make you feel good.
Here's something Peter Navarro said.
He was talking about the ventilators and how the American companies were gearing up to rapidly create ventilators.
And I forget which company it was, but one of the car companies, I believe, built a ventilator factory...
That was using their own factory as a retrofit.
And they started producing ventilators in 11 days.
In 11 days, we spun up a ventilator factory.
And we're well on the way to producing on, I think he said, 150,000 ventilators.
150,000 ventilators.
It looks like we'll need about a third of them.
We'll probably, you know, take two-thirds of them and, you know, distribute them to states for storehouses and stuff for storage.
And then we'll probably help other countries.
But how proud are you to live in a country that can make a ventilator factory in 11 days?
Remember when we were watching China put up their little instant hospitals and everybody was saying, my god, we can't do that.
We'll never build a hospital in 11 days like China, and then we build a ventilator factory in 11 days.
Not bad. I assume it was probably more about assembling parts from other places, so it probably had a lot more to do with assembling than anything else, but still, 11 days, pretty impressive.
Here's what I propose. I just tweeted this before I got out here.
I propose that when the coronavirus is behind us, and someday it will be, that we forgive each other, be you Democrats or Republicans, be you professionals and experts and doctors, be you business people, be you citizens.
I propose that we just forgive each other.
For all of our honest mistakes during the fog of war.
Because let's admit, somebody's going to be right, but only because there's always somebody on every side of every issue.
So somebody's going to be right by luck.
But nobody knows what's the right thing to do.
Nobody really had quite the right information in the early days.
Nobody's smart enough to know what's the exact right thing to do and the right time to do it.
So whether we got things right or whether some people got some things wrong, they're both luck.
The things we did right, a little bit of luck.
The things we did wrong, bad luck.
Because you just can't be smart when you don't have data and you don't have a way to get it.
But that's when I'm talking about honest mistakes.
If you make honest mistakes, I think we should just forgive each other.
But we should not forgive dishonest mistakes.
And I don't have any evidence that anybody involved in this country has a dishonest mistake.
I know you're going to think so-and-so lied, blah, blah, blah.
But I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I think some people had bad information and took bad information forward.
But I don't know that anybody had bad intentions in this country.
However, China...
Made a different kind of mistake.
As far as we can tell.
Now apparently the president's going to withhold funding from the World Health Organization until he gets an answer.
And maybe that'll tell us whether China did something, let's say, intentional versus unintentional.
But it's certainly looking every bit as if China made a dishonest mistake.
In other words, They just lied to us and knew it.
So under those conditions, I don't think we have to yell at them and call them names.
We don't have to disrespect them.
But it wouldn't make any sense to have a future with them in which we're continuing to trade.
Because they don't have a system that's compatible with our system.
So whatever it is about their system, I don't even need to judge it.
I'm not going to say it's a good system.
I'm not going to say it's bad.
I'm not going to say that the Chinese government is good or bad.
I have an opinion, but it doesn't matter for what I'm going to say next.
And certainly I don't think the Chinese people are anything except awesome people.
Everybody I know from China is pretty amazing.
But still we can say, no hard feelings, but our systems don't work together.
Whatever it is that we're doing, you know, this democracy, capitalism, you know, as much transparency as you can, it just doesn't fit with the, we'll get away with anything we can, and we're going to hide as much as we can.
Those two systems don't work.
Now, if they were both the same system, I don't know, would that work?
Who knows? Maybe you would both be okay with it because you're both doing the same thing.
But it's not personal.
You know, we don't have to say, China, we're in a Cold War now.
We don't have to do that. We could just say, you know, we'd love to connect our telecommunications equipment to stuff that's made in your country, but we also like security, and you haven't built anything that has that feature.
So it's nothing personal.
We just can't connect to your telecom equipment because you don't have a feature we need.
The feature is security.
Should you ever have that feature, we'd love to talk to you again.
But I think we should just...
Completely depersonalize this thing.
Because, you know, I don't know what they're thinking, but I don't have a bad feeling about anybody in China, except, you know, maybe some of the leaders.
But let's just not make it personal.
It's just business.
If you've got a system and we've got a system and they just don't talk, why force it?
All right. Most of you probably saw Obama's endorsement of Joe Biden.
And I cheekily tweeted this a little while ago.
This is me imagining a conversation between Obama and some sample Democrats.
And Obama says, I'm going to endorse a candidate today.
The Democrats in unison say, yay!
Is the candidate pretty?
And Obama says, he has a great personality.
It felt like that's what he was saying.
Did you note that when Obama was describing the greatness of Joe Biden, there were two categories.
One, he attended meetings for important stuff.
Now the way Obama says it is Obama put Biden in charge and he got things done.
But did he? I think he attended meetings of things that were going to happen one way or the other, that Obama ordered and other people pretty much executed.
But okay, he was at the meetings.
But how much of that did Biden initiate?
He did initiate some stuff.
I don't remember Obama mentioning it.
But it seems like Obama was really focusing on his personality and Am I wrong?
You know, he might have said character and, you know, you need a president.
You need a president who's got these qualities.
And the qualities are, you know, and I'm thinking to myself, you're so three years too late.
Because if President Trump's personality quirks were going to ruin the country...
Wouldn't we have a sample of that already?
Think about it.
We've had three and a half years of President Trump, and from the very beginning, people were saying, oh, that personality, that character of his, the way he thinks and operates, those times he's not going to pass the fact-checking, all that personality stuff, that's going to cost you.
That's going to cost you.
What would be an example of that?
Three and a half years, he's been exactly the same person for three and a half years.
If it's Obama's biggest bitch three and a half years later, he better come up with a fucking...
I'm sorry. He better come up with an example.
If that's your biggest complaint, is the guy's personality, and how that personality will...
Wreck stuff. After three and a half years, you need to give us an example of that.
The economy went down because the time Trump told a joke.
Is that it?
The unemployment level rose because that time Trump insulted a member of the press.
Right? Did that happen?
I don't remember that happening.
So, Give us an example.
That was such a 2015 way to approach Joe Biden that it made me think there was no organic enthusiasm.
Did you pick up on that?
It was like Obama sat down to write an essay on a topic he didn't care about.
Please write an essay on the advantages of Joe Biden Over the evil, orange menace, President Trump.
And, you know, Obama's sitting down with his big old pencil, and he's like, alright, his character is not the type of fiber we need to be leadership in the country.
I'm not just talking about mayors.
I've got to fill up this page.
I'm not just talking about governors.
Need to fill up the page.
Not just talking about Congress.
Okay, they'll be on to me if I do another sentence like that.
And I'm just listening to this thing, and it looked like the most uninspired essay that was written by somebody who really didn't want to write the essay.
And the best thing he could come up with is, this guy's got a good personality.
I swear to God, yeah, damned by faith, praise.
I swear to God, the The biggest advantage that Joe Biden has as a Democratic candidate is that nobody dislikes him.
Think about that.
During this whole process, Joe Biden has been criticized and insulted in just every way, every accusation from corruption to senility.
I mean just everything.
He's had every charge at him.
But... Let me ask you this.
To his credit, have you heard even one person say that he's not a nice guy?
Right? Even President Trump said in public the other day he's a really nice guy.
Everybody who's on the other side can't even find anything that they don't like about him.
But I think the Democrats have mistaken Biden having no reason to dislike him with having the qualities to be president.
Now, one of the characteristics of human beings is we're always fighting the last war.
You've heard that phrase, right?
So, and I think it was Naval who was saying, I don't know if he quoted somebody, or this was his own observation, that you are the result of your traumas.
That who you are It's mostly defined by the biggest problems you had and how you got past them.
And since the country, the Democrats specifically, have been undergoing this three and a half year trauma of being...
In a country in which their most hated nemesis, President Trump, is the president, you've got to figure that they're going to fight the war of the personality war.
It's the one they lost because they tried to beat them on personality and character and it didn't work.
That's what the whole grab them by the whatever tape was about.
Your character is bad.
We can't have that character. So they're coming around again with the old character attack.
And it feels like Joe Biden was the antidote to the mental anguish of Trump.
Just hold this thought in your head for a moment and you'll see how profound it is.
Or not. If you're thinking about Trump, what is literally the opposite of him?
It's Biden. Biden is almost the literal opposite of Trump.
I believe that That the Democrats wanted the most opposite person because they had such a high level of hatred for Trump, and that whoever ran against him just had to be the most different.
And when somebody like Mike Bloomberg gets on the stage, well, it doesn't matter that Mike Bloomberg is considered highly capable and honest, right?
I mean, he was considered highly capable and honest.
That should have been good enough, right?
And probably Mike Bloomberg said to himself, look, if I'm running against President Trump and I think I have, you know, all these billionaire credentials and I've been a mayor, I mean, I've got the resume, clearly I have the skills, I have the money, I'm a reasonable guy, you know, I'm nice to people, I have all the right policies, why wouldn't I win?
And here's what I think he missed.
I think he missed that he's a billionaire from New York and he's not different enough.
He's just not different enough.
It's not good enough that even if you thought Mike Bloomberg had more skill and was nicer, it's just not different enough.
And the most different person was Joe Biden.
So you could take almost any of the other candidates.
Amy Klobuchar, very capable candidate.
You know, one of the top politicians.
Could still be the vice presidential pick.
Has not been ruled out. And by all accounts, a very capable, you know, politician.
But, you know, the story about her being mean to her staff and, I don't know, eating a salad with a comb or whatever.
She was a little bit mean.
So she wasn't opposite enough of the thing they hated most about Trump.
What about Kamala Harris?
Well, In many ways, she was the opposite of Trump, but not in personality.
In personality, people thought she could be a little harsh.
Maybe she'd been a little mean.
She'd prosecuted a little too hard.
So you can see how people would be looking for the furthest from their trauma, which was Trump.
So Biden, I think, was just the default.
All right. I told you that some restaurants...
Might start selling goods directly to the public because they have different supply chains.
So if you wanted to buy toilet paper and your grocery store didn't have any, there's actually a pretty good chance that you could go to your local restaurant that's only doing takeout, because they had to close because of the shutdown, and say, hey, can you order me a bunch of toilet paper?
And they'd say, sure, will you take a 20% markup, 50%, whatever it is, and then they'd just buy it and walk it out to the car.
So I just found out there is one of our local, another one of our local businesses is doing this, the First Street Ale House in Livermore, in California.
If it's something that's something they would ordinarily order anyway, from a cut of meat, salmon, or actually toilet paper that's on their list, you can buy it over the phone, and you just drive up and you show your receipt in the window, and they carry it out and put it in your trunk.
You don't have to have any human contact.
You're behind the glass of your car.
You just hold up the receipt, pop your trunk, boom.
You got yourself some groceries, and you never went to the grocery store.
Now when I see this, and it's really amazing how people are adapting, right?
People, the best entrepreneurs just found new ways to make money, and when the old ways come back, they're going to have new ways and old ways.
So I think I think the best entrepreneurs are actually finding a way to come out of this ahead.
Here's another idea.
The big sports businesses are in a lot of trouble because they can't fill the stands for the obvious reasons of distance.
So I was saying that maybe the big sports teams should look at this as an opportunity.
To build sports from the ground up.
You know, same athletes and same basic rules, but instead of building it for in-person watching, why not build it from the ground up for watching it digitally, from a distance?
In other words, the reason that sports can't survive just with television, as grain is watching sports on television is, it's still not optimized for that.
Here's what you could do.
For example...
You could mic all of the players and all the coaches and all of the refs.
Let's say you're at home and maybe you've got an app so you can watch sports, and you could choose your channel.
So you could actually hear the ref, you could hear the announcers, you could hear the defensive line, you could hear everything except the quarterback giving them the calls.
I guess you'd have to turn that off.
But it wouldn't have to be just football.
It could be basketball, baseball, etc.
And you make it sort of a party in which, let's say, the other people watching are in your ear too.
So instead of having the cheering of the crowd that motivates the players and makes you feel like you're part of something, of course you get motivated by the cheer of the crowd.
What if...
What if...
Just saying...
The cheer of the crowd was in your headphones, and it's the other people at home who are literally cheering at home.
So you might be hearing, you know, let's say just to complete this, let's say you're watching it on whatever device, and you're watching one of the channels, and you're listening to the defense or the offense and the players that are, oh, I'm going to rip this guy apart.
He always leans left.
Watch this. I'm going to make him lean left, and I'm going to take his legs out.
And you're listening to it, and then there's a play.
And then the app just lets all the cheering from all the living rooms through.
And let's say that the...
Just to extend this, just to brainstorm.
And let's say the players...
Let's say the players also have an earpiece.
So that the players can...
Because this is a microphone as well as an earpiece.
So they've got an earpiece.
So they can actually hear the cheering.
So what if they can hear you cheering at home?
And why not? Is there...
There's no technological reason that you couldn't hear everybody cheering from their living room.
You would just have to build the app that does it.
Then, you can imagine that the players were talking to each other, you'd be able to pick up that, etc.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, I don't want to listen to these boring athletes and their inane chatter, but that's when you're thinking about it developed the old way.
I'm not saying do business exactly the same way.
I'm saying tell the players that part of their job is to be interesting.
Mic them up. There's always going to be a few funny people on every team.
You don't need all nine players on the field to be witty and entertaining.
If you've got a hilarious shortstop and then the others just sort of play to him, it's the best show in the world.
How much would you like watching a baseball game where most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen?
Even if you love baseball, let's admit it, you're waiting for stuff to happen a lot.
But while you're waiting, you're hearing the funniest shortstop in the world just ripping apart the other team and just saying, this guy's got noodle legs and hasn't had a hit since Tuesday.
Whatever. It would be very entertaining.
Anyway. So the whole point of it is that if you rethought sports as a digital product, it would still work.
Every bit of it would still work in the live setting once they go back to...
Crowds are okay.
But in the meantime, you'd have a better product.
So they should go back with a better product.
It should be improved sports when they go back.
It shouldn't be the... Just wait, take a few months off, and then just go back to it.
How boring would that be, huh?
Did you see the... Press conference in which Trump got all over that one idiot in the back who wouldn't shut up.
I thought it was his best world wrestling performance.
I think by now, even the people who are slow to catch on have figured out that Trump knows what the show is.
He knows he's putting on a show, and he plays it like a show.
It took people, I think, his critics, it's taken them years to figure that out, and even some of them still talk about it like he just lost his temper.
No, that's not what happened.
He might have been genuinely mad, whatever time you're talking about.
It doesn't matter which time.
You say, that time you're talking about, whatever it was, he might have been genuinely mad, but that's not why he acted the way he did.
He didn't act that way because he was mad.
He acted that way because it's a show, and he knows how to put on the show.
And he used a genuine emotion in whatever time to put on the show.
So today's show was excellent.
There was this I don't know, there's some reporter that must have been from some unfriendly publication.
And he starts asking questions and Trump tries to shut him down and doesn't really let him get his question out.
So the guy's insistent and he won't stop talking.
And Trump's already gone to the next person and the guy just keeps talking.
And Trump just stops, puts the full Trump laser cannon focus on this guy and just rips him apart.
And I'm just watching this and I'm thinking, I've never enjoyed politics this much.
You know, we say this all the time, to the point where it's trite.
You're going to miss this.
I mean, you're really going to miss this.
Because you don't realize how jacked up your body chemistry is.
We're kind of addicted to it.
If I'm being honest, we're kind of addicted.
And you might have taken your team, you know, let's say your team is Team Trump, and you're like, ah, Trump really tore into that guy.
That was a good day. But of course, the other team, they think they're winning too.
So on CNN, it'll be like, ah, did you see that crazy old Trump did some more crazy stuff because he's so impulsive and he can't control himself.
Rah! And then their ratings go up and everybody has a good time.
So it's like everybody wins.
The reason that wrestling and sports and all that work is that everybody gets a chance to win.
Maybe your team loses today, but you're going to win later.
So you get your win too. Anyway, I thought Trump's show was maybe the finest ever.
Just for like a one-on-one moment.
One of his best, I'm going to say.
Let's talk about the fake controversy of whether Trump is trying to be a dictator and overrule the governors despite the constitutional limitations.
And the press tried to bait Trump back into that conversation.
He wisely decided that he didn't want to have that conversation.
He doesn't need to. He doesn't have to answer it.
And here's why. There's no real question about what would happen in the real world.
So talking to the governors and talking to Trump about, well, what would you do in this situation?
And what if this?
And who's really in charge?
Are you in charge? You say you're in charge, but are you in charge?
Maybe you should talk to him.
Maybe you should fight it out. Maybe we've got a little fight going.
That's all artificial.
Because neither the governors nor the president have any question in their mind...
How this will play out.
There's no question. There's no ambiguity whatsoever among the governors and the president.
Wouldn't you say? Because here's how it's going to work out.
Whatever is the smartest thing, that's what they'll agree to do.
Because remember, the visibility of this is extraordinary.
Everything that every governor decides, everything the president does, the task force does, We've got 325 million eyes looking at it.
So if there is such a thing as a good plan, and let's say a governor brings it to the president, he doesn't have to bring it to the president, but let's just say they publicize their plans, and let's say the president says, whoa, that one's a problem.
What's going to happen? Well, the president isn't going to send them the army and kill them all, right?
The president's going to call them.
And say, look, this could be a big problem.
Why are you doing this? They'll talk it out.
The president will maybe use some pressure.
Might say, look, you know, the federal government's giving you a lot of help.
You've got to give us a little.
You've got to give us a little, so we'll give you a little.
Might be a little pressure.
In the end, how's it going to work out?
Well, in the end, the state will get something that's pretty close to what they wanted.
The president might influence a little bit.
And that's what you would want.
It's exactly the way you would want it to go.
So as long as we're all watching, nobody's going to do something crazy that the public and the observers would say, why are you doing that?
We're watching. We're watching you do that.
Don't do that. There's just too many people watching.
So I don't think there's any risk whatsoever that there's any problem between the governors and the federal government and Trump When it comes right down to it, you know, when the phone call is made, you know, when the legislation has to be, you know, when the check has to be written, it's not going to be a problem.
And you've already seen them all work together well enough that I think you believe that.
Let's see. So here's a real sign of something.
So in the news, AOC... And Senator Schumer got together, and they're calling on FEMA to supply funeral funding to families who've lost loved ones to the virus.
And they say, quote, disaster funeral assistance would help individuals and households with the death of an immediate family member.
Now, you know, I don't know much about the issue, but sounds like a good one, right?
So in terms of whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, I would say anything, anything we can do to Help the public at this point is a good idea.
So, separate from the question of whether it's a good idea, which I don't want to talk about, it's just not interesting because it seems like a good enough idea.
It's not really controversial. But what's interesting about this is that AOC and Schumer, wouldn't you say, are in the sort of top five of effective Trump critics?
Is that a fair statement?
AOC and Schumer, when they get together, they're like the best, strongest Trump critics.
And what they spent their time on today was something that needed to be done, I'm guessing.
It seems like this is a reasonable thing to ask for, and I'm happy that they're serving the public.
I'm sure their constituents are asking for this, so I'm totally on board with what they're asking for.
Here's my point.
Here's my point. It's all they had left.
It's all they had left.
Because as soon as Dr.
Fauci said, President Trump did everything we recommended, what do you got?
As soon as President Trump said, let's get a ton of money and give it to people directly, and then the Democrats said, how about even more money?
And the President said, okay.
And then when we spend all that money, the president's literally in public today is saying, you Democrats got to give us more money, more money to give to the poor people.
What do AOC and Chuck Schumer have left?
What issue are they going to...
Because they can't really talk about the economy.
Everybody understands why the economy is the way it is.
they can't really talk about him handling things wrong because the experts told him what to do and he just did it.
And they're the ones saying, President, you have to listen to the experts on climate change.
I think, in a weird way, the most positive endorsement I've ever seen of President Trump came today completely accidentally and in a different realm that had nothing to do with him, that two of his strongest nemeses, that two of his strongest nemeses, Yes.
Got together to do something that was simply useful for the public.
And by the way, to their credit.
So thank you. I'm sure the families will appreciate that.
I hope FEMA comes through.
But that's all they had left.
Think about that. Think about that was the issue that was left.
Important, and I'm glad they did it.
But it kind of shows that the president is sort of hitting the, you know, He's pulling the big levers and hitting the big buttons, and what's left needs to be mopped up.
It's not less important, but it certainly suggests that the President's on the right path.
All right. I promised you 45 minutes of stellar entertainment.
Pretty sure I delivered.
So, tonight...
By the way, did anybody try my technique for relaxation?
The technique was to remember your last haircut or hair salon visit and just imagine yourself going through the steps and how it felt and smelled and all that stuff.
So in the comments, when the comments catch up, just tell me if that worked for you.
"On average, before a wound on virus, 7,500 people die every day.
We can't afford it.
So, I ask the question of people who think we're panicking on this thing to tell me what it would look like for them to be wrong.
In other words, how many people would have to die when we go back to work for somebody who said, you know, you're overselling this thing, it's not that big a deal compared to other problems we have.
What level of death would it take for you to look back and say, whoa, I guess the experts were right.
This was way worse than the flu.
Is there a number that you would say, yeah, I was wrong?
I just wonder what that would be.
Thank you.
I drink myself to sleep, says somebody.
Okay.
Now my husband wants me to cut his hair.
Oh, somebody doesn't like haircuts.
Oh, that's too bad. Awesome suggestion.
It worked like a charm.
Slept like a baby.
Amazingly, no panic.
Oh, it worked again.
Okay. Wow, I guess it worked pretty well.
I'll try it again. It's the sort of thing that you can do more than once.
Alright, that's all for now. I will talk to you in the morning.
Dennis Prager posted a letter written by five doctors who think a lockdown was not necessary.
Does that mean anything? I'm pretty sure you can find five doctors to say anything.
All right, we'll talk about that tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection