Episode 952 Scott Adams: Talking About Fake Kim Jong-Un, Treason, Waco and Coronavirus
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Content:
The many things we do NOT know about coronavirus
Candace Owens suspended from Twitter over coronavirus views
Do Kim Jong-Un video and photos, provide proof of life?
Why was General Flynn targeted for destruction?
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
If you're watching the clock, you are ready with your finger poised, ready to join Coffee with Scott Adams.
Those are the people we like, the prepared people, the people who know what time it is, so to speak, literally and figuratively.
Somebody says, there's video, Scott.
Oh, we'll talk about that, won't we?
Yes, we will. But before that, we will prepare for the greatest day since yesterday.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the damn pandemic.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Mmm.
Yep, I can feel that R dipping below one.
Yeah, that's coronavirus talk.
Yeah, there was a time when I would not say things like, well, I hope we can get the R less than 1.
Here's a list of things we still don't know, amazingly.
We don't know if ventilators make things better or worse.
What? Seriously?
We don't know that now?
Are you kidding me?
We don't know if ventilators make it better or worse?
Now? I mean, I can get why we didn't know in the beginning, but now?
We still don't know if ventilators make it better or worse?
We don't know if hydroxychloroquine works still?
Are you kidding me?
I mean, a lot of you have an opinion, but we don't have good visibility on that yet.
Given that it only takes the entire course of having the virus, it's like a 10-day, two-week thing.
How many 10-day, two-week periods have passed since we first said, hey, how about this hydroxychloroquine?
And we still don't know?
Are you kidding me?
What's wrong? How about remdesivir?
We think that's pretty good, right?
Because you saw the news come out that remdesivir looks like it's really successful.
Did you know that at the same time they're saying remdesivir is very successful, that they say, but they kind of mutter this, it trails off?
Listen to the second part.
I'll mutter it, so maybe it won't be that clear, so you have to listen carefully.
Remdesivir had a very successful trial.
We have very high hopes for it.
It's working very well.
Except that it doesn't seem to change the death rate whatsoever.
But the trial went very well.
We could see that the levels of virus were decreasing.
But for some reason, the same amount of people die no matter what, whether they're on the drug or not.
However, the drug is very, very promising.
What? Are you kidding me?
We don't know if remdesivir has any impact on the death rate because we haven't seen it, meaning we haven't seen it make any difference.
Now, if it doesn't change the death rate, what's it doing?
What's it doing? Now, I get that they can measure that people are cleared of the virus faster, But if they die at the same rate, that's sort of the whole game, isn't it?
Did we go through this whole thing so we can get people coughing fewer than four days?
You know, four days fewer than it would have been otherwise?
Is that why we did all this?
So I would say remdesivir has a lot of questions.
How about vaccinations? I see a story today that maybe we'll never have one.
Because there's a really good chance we will never have a vaccination.
Because this virus is similar to ones that we still don't have a vaccination for.
It wouldn't be the first time we couldn't find a vaccination at all.
Now, I feel optimistic that we will, but we don't know that.
We also don't know why viruses ever peter out.
We don't know why.
It's not because of herd instinct, apparently.
Not herd instinct. It's not because of herd immunity.
It's not because of vaccinations.
The head virologist in France, the top guy said, you know, we don't even know why they ever stop.
They just do. I mean, you can say to yourself, well, it's obviously because of X. But is it?
Is it? We don't know.
The experts don't know.
So those are all the things we don't know about this coronavirus situation.
But I wanted to do a little math for you.
And this will be a little math that you can do at home.
I'm going to give you some raw numbers.
I want you to check my math.
Now, there should be time that you can just quickly calculate this, and some of you will do it in the comments so we can see.
And here's the calculation.
What if the rest of the country, the United States, had the same experience in terms of death rate as New York City?
What would the death rate be in the whole country?
If it turned out in the long run to be similar to what New York City is experiencing just so far, not even counting future deaths in New York City, just what they've had so far.
Here are the numbers that you can calculate that from.
And check to make sure that the raw numbers are right too.
I think they're pretty close.
So this might be a few days old.
But the number of dead in New York City that was above the baseline expected dead.
So listen to how I'm calculating this.
I'm not saying this is the number of coronavirus deaths.
I'm saying this is the number of deaths above the baseline for a normal year in New York City.
And they said it was 21,000 more deaths in New York City.
So the implication is that that's mostly coronavirus or all of it, but that doesn't matter.
That's just the death rate.
So the death rate was 21,000 more than normal.
Population in New York City, 8.6 million.
So take your 21,000 dead, divide it by 8.6 million, and tell me if you get.0024.
So that would be the ratio of people who died in New York City above and beyond what they expected in a normal year.
Then take the population of the United States, 327 million, subtract out The 8.6 million, because you've already dealt with them separately.
So what's left is, I think you've got about 318 million people that are not New York City.
Now, if the 318 million who are not New York City had the same death rate as the ones that are New York City, how many people would die in the United States?
Can somebody give me that number?
I don't believe I calculated it right because it would be 764,000 people dead.
So, somebody's calculating...
I don't know what that number...
776,000 dead.
Yeah, so in that range. So over 700,000 dead if the rest of the United States went the way that New York City is going.
But would it? I mean, is there any reason to think Because New York City is very special, right?
It's special in the sense that there's so much that's different about it.
You've got more people coming in from different places.
You've got more elevators.
You've got your subways. It's a different demographic.
I don't know if people smoke more or what.
Probably less in New York City.
I don't know what the ratio is.
But here's the question.
Are those differences in New York City the kind of differences that you would say, oh, don't worry about the rest of the country because they're not like New York City?
Is that statement, do you find that statement to be reasonable?
I'll say it again.
Just check your thinking here.
Is this a reasonable statement?
The rest of the United States will not go the way New York City went.
Even if you didn't mitigate, so let's make it hypothetical.
Let's say nobody mitigated.
Would the rest of the country look like New York City, even when New York City is mitigating?
The best comparison is you're taking the smallest risk, which is that New York City, with full mitigation, And the rest of the country, you know, without it, could you get to some horrible situation?
The answer is yes. But you say to yourself, but the rest of the country is not New York City, so that doesn't matter, right?
But explain to me what would keep the rest of the country from having the same experience, but slower.
Just slower. Because the whole point of the coronavirus and flattening the curve is that in New York City, it's hard to slow it because of the density.
So people are just giving to each other too quickly.
But in the rest of the country, you could slow it down, right?
So that's different. Totally different.
You can slow it down in the rest of the country, but not in New York City.
It's harder to slow it down.
Is that a difference?
Because the number of people who get it The ratio of people who get it in the rest of the country should be the same in the long run.
It will just take longer to get there, am I right?
So fact check this, that the rest of the country would in fact, there's no reason, we have no reason to suspect, You don't know what's going to happen, but you have no reason to suspect that the rest of the country would not eventually come up to New York City levels if you let it.
In other words, if you said, all right, the rest of the country looks pretty good, let's take off the controls.
Would the rest of the country reach the same ratio as New York City?
It would, right? What would stop it?
I can't think of anything that would stop it.
Somebody's suggesting summer.
One of the other unknowns we have is whether this virus stops in the summer.
We assume so, but we actually don't know that.
Apparently, that's not a given.
Can you hold out until a vaccine?
Well, I saw an article today that we might never have one.
Bill Gates thinks it could take two years, which would be too long to be in lockdown.
So, the people who said this is just the flu have to explain this math.
They have to explain to me why the rest of the country would have a different experience over time, not as quickly.
We all agree that it wouldn't happen as quickly.
But over time, wouldn't you reach the same number of deaths as a ratio as you did in New York City?
And let me ask you this.
Do you think the people in New York City are more or less healthy Than the people in the middle of the country.
Have you seen the middle of the country?
Have you seen Iowa?
Have you ever traveled in this country through the middle?
We are an overweight country.
But New York City? Not so much.
New York City is one of your thinner cities.
Fact check me on this.
So, I do a lot of traveling, or used to.
Back in the days when people traveled, I did a lot.
And if you go to LA, everybody's thin.
You go to San Francisco, people are pretty thin.
You go to New York City, people are pretty thin.
You go to Texas, not so thin.
You go to the middle of the country, anywhere, and there are so many people there.
How are they going to do when the coronavirus sweeps through the grossly overweight population?
Probably not as well as New York City.
Probably not as well.
So, we'll see.
So believe it or not, even at this late date, we do not have general agreement in this country, not even close to agreement, whether the coronavirus is worse than the regular flu.
Right? Now, things got really quiet in the comments when I asked you to come up to sort of do the math.
If the rest of the country went like New York City, and I think you'd agree we see no reason it wouldn't happen, there's nothing to stop it, We should have three-quarters of a million people die in the next year or so that didn't need to die.
Now, is that the regular flu, three-quarters of a million?
And are the people who are not afraid of that, three-quarters of a million people dying, is it because they can't tell the difference between a country that's in lockdown And doing social distancing and one that isn't.
Because I think that the people who are still in favor of the people who still want to open up the country as quickly as possible.
And I'm in the camp that says we should open up sooner than later.
So I'm not arguing against it.
I'm just thinking it through.
The people who want to open it up, when I see them arguing in public, they act as though they can't tell the difference.
Between a fully mitigated situation that we're in now and one that's fully unmitigated.
It's like they act like those are the same.
Right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't all the people who say...
So I would put, let's say, Candace Owens in this category.
And I don't want to...
Let me speak more generally because I don't want to put, I don't want to assume that I know the internal thoughts of someone else.
So I'll talk generally just, but Candace would represent the people who are more aggressive about getting back to work soon.
Now again, I'm pretty close to that point of view myself.
The difference is that unlike some of the people who say we should get back to work, I can tell the difference between mitigated and unmitigated.
And I look at them as separate.
So when I say, let's get back to work, I do say it's going to cost us a few hundred thousand people.
And we still should do it.
That's my opinion. But if you're arguing we should get back to work and it won't cost us a few hundred thousand people, what numbers are you looking at?
Because the numbers I'm looking at, as soon as we take the mitigation off, they should get there.
Now, it could be the experts are wrong.
Have the experts ever been wrong?
Yeah. A lot.
So it could be that Candace and folks who have that point of view turn out to be the ones who are right.
You know, can I rule that out?
Nope. I cannot rule that out.
I can't rule out at this point.
I can't rule out that a year from now we'll be saying, Scott, you frickin' idiot.
You told us that this was dangerous.
We took all the mitigation off and nobody extra died.
Maybe. I mean, maybe this summer will be enough to take the edge off it.
We get some therapeutics.
We figure out, stop using ventilators, just, you know, brainstorming here.
Maybe. Maybe the death rate plunges in the next few months, no matter what we do.
It's possible. So, I guess there's some controversy about whether Candace Owens got Banned temporarily from Twitter?
I'm just watching the conversation online, and people seem to think her account still exists, so therefore she was not banned.
But other people say, no, it looks like that, it's just that she can't tweet.
So it looks like it's live to us, but if she tried to tweet, she wouldn't be able to, allegedly.
So I don't know the details.
I don't know what's banned and what isn't.
That's just the controversy that's going on.
And I guess the sub-part of that controversy is that the only thing anybody can think of as to why she would be banned from Twitter is that Twitter thinks she's spreading misinformation or bad information about the coronavirus.
Now, I also think that Candace spreads dangerous and bad information about the coronavirus.
But am I an expert?
No. Is my opinion about what is dangerous to spread about the coronavirus, should you take that seriously?
No. No.
I'll tell you what my opinion is worth taking seriously, and this isn't one of them, because there's nobody who knows.
There's nobody who's smart enough.
There's no expert. There's no mathematician.
There's no statistician.
Who can tell you when's the right time to go back to work?
If it were easy, we wouldn't be arguing about it.
It's just unknowable. So we all end up using sort of our biases, our gut instinct, our guessing.
So I'll make a guess because we have to make a decision, right?
We don't have the option of not making decisions.
Even not making a decision is a decision of not going back to work.
So you've got to make a decision.
But I think you need to have some humility about how comfortable you could be knowing you're right.
I would say, I'm not comfortable.
I'll give you my opinion, but don't ask me to be confident about it.
That would be crazy. And anybody who acts confident about their opinion, either going back to work or staying locked up longer, if they're acting confident, you should immediately ignore them.
Like, the moment you see strong confidence, you should run the other direction.
Now, that's partly one of my issues with Candace's opinion on this.
It's not even the details of the opinion, which I end up being very close to.
In other words, my opinion isn't very far from Candace's.
I don't even know if there is any difference, actually.
But the difference is, at least she presents herself publicly as being very certain That that's the right answer.
I can't get close to that level of certainty, even though I'm leaning in the same direction.
Now, I'm not sure that it's bad to act certain when you're not.
I don't know if that's the wrong thing in this situation, because certainty is part of what influences other people.
And even I'm watching the show as a spectator, and I say, you know, If I could, if I could influence people to maybe agree with my best guess, maybe I'd do that.
I just don't know if I want to.
Candace might want to influence people.
And when you're influencing, sometimes you do take on more certainty than you actually feel internally.
So, again, this is speculation because I can't tell you what Candace or anybody else in the world is thinking.
I can't know that.
I can only know what they're doing, and then I try to put my interpretation of it, but it's my interpretation.
I don't know what's in their head.
So my interpretation is that Candace is one of the best persuaders in the game.
And if she is taking on more confidence in the way she persuades than she might internally feel, I would say that's okay.
I would say that's okay, because that's what persuasion is.
But I'd be a little wary of anybody you think actually believes their own confidence.
So I ended up unfollowing Candace because I couldn't stand I couldn't stand what I thought was bad information.
So I had the same opinion that I think Twitter had, because we don't know why she was banned, but the only thing anybody can think of is that Twitter thought that her recommendations were counter to the experts, I believe. Specifically, I think the one that got her allegedly, and I don't know what the word is, it's not banned, Like, what happens?
Suspended? Get a timeout?
Whatever the word is. I think what it was is that she was seemingly suggesting not paying attention to the government guidelines.
So it could be that Twitter just said, ah, it's just too dangerous to have people suggest that we should ignore government health and safety guidelines.
But here's where the real issue is.
If that's your standard for suspending someone on Twitter, how do you not apply that to the Surgeon General of the United States?
How do you not apply it to every politician who has misspoken, of which there have been many?
When I say misspoken, I'm being generous.
Because politicians have flat out given you wrong, dangerous information.
Lots of them, on both sides.
Including the President, probably.
I can't think of an example, but one assumes that every politician has given you bad information at least once.
The Surgeon General told you not to wear a mask.
The World Health Organization had more misinformation than information.
Why are they not banned?
Who gets to decide?
Is the Surgeon General okay because at least he was trying?
Well, at least he was trying.
Sure, he got it wrong, but at least he's a medical professional.
At least he was trying. Well, Candace doesn't get the benefit of a doubt.
What if she gets run wrong?
What if she uses her just good judgment, looks at the situation, And it's not so much a medical one as it is, you know, a risk management situation of, do you want to risk this to get back to work?
Do you believe the statistics?
That sort of thing. What if Candace makes a good, let's say, a good intentioned opinion?
And what if it's wrong?
Wrong in the sense that after everything is said and done, you can look back and say, oh, that was the wrong decision in hindsight.
So in hindsight, what if it was wrong?
Can you suspend somebody for being wrong with good intentions?
If you have good intentions, you show your work, and I believe Candace shows her work, right?
She has tweeted all kinds of data, sources, links, analyses, opinions that support her point of view.
She didn't guess, right?
She might be right or she might be wrong, but she's not guessing.
She's looked at all the data.
I suppose we're all guessing at the end because we don't know the answer.
By the way, so I completely support Candace's free speech.
I'm pretty close to her opinion.
I don't like one bit the way she's expressing it in this case.
Because I think her level of confidence is misleading.
But that's a personal decision.
She can make that decision.
It's not up to me to judge.
So I don't judge her and don't much disagree with the ultimate direction that she's promoting.
That was too much on that.
All right. I know you want me to talk about Kim Jong-un and his photo.
So there was the photo and then there's a video.
So the photo showed Kim Jong-un cutting the ribbon, and I called BS on that photo.
Now somebody said, Scott, Scott, Scott, joke's on you because there's a video too.
There's a video.
So the video isn't a lie, is it?
Deep breath. Let me just say it again.
And then maybe you can figure out where my head's at.
Scott, Scott, Scott, don't you know it must be true because it's on video?
Do I need to go on?
It's 2020.
Anybody who says to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, it must be true, look at the video.
Where have you been for the last five years?
Four years is really crunch time.
The last four years? If you haven't noticed in the last four years that video can lie, where have you been?
The entire Fine People hoax is based on a selectively edited video.
The entire the president wants you to drink Clorox hoax is based on selective video where you just don't show the whole context.
Video is the most misleading thing in the world.
What about the Covington kids?
Do you know why I thought that the Covington kids were actually to blame for about 24 hours until I saw the video from the other angle?
It's because video lies.
Video is a big ol' liar.
It's a lying liar.
Did y'all see the deep fakes?
You can see Trump giving an Obama speech or Obama giving a Trump speech in their own words.
It's crazy. Now, I don't think that the videos were deep fakes, but if you're saying he must be alive because there's a video, just listen to yourself.
Try saying that out loud.
Look in the mirror. Look in the mirror.
Those of you who said, Scott, you're wrong because there's a video.
Look in the mirror and look in the mirror and say to yourself, yes, I believe Scott's wrong because there's a video.
Can you even say that in the mirror and look yourself in the eye?
You know that video doesn't mean anything.
You know that, right?
Does North Korea have the ability to find some old videotape that might look like he was touring some facility that looked industrial?
Yeah. How hard would it be to fake that?
Pretty easy. Pretty easy.
Right. Now, here's the fun part.
If anybody's new to this, let me say, I'm mostly having fun here.
If you mistakenly think you heard me say, I am 100% sure these are fake pictures and Kim Jong-un is actually dead, I'm not saying that.
I'm just having fun.
But can you agree that the video has no evidentiary value?
Would you agree with that? Would you agree that the evidentiary value of the video is zero in 2020?
I hope we can agree with that, right?
Because if you thought it was proof, I don't know where you've been for four years, because video is more misleading than anything else.
All right. Secondly, here's some fun parts.
Now, the next thing I tell you, I can't put any assessment of credibility on, okay?
Somebody says, Scott, you mentioned video first, though.
Nope. No, you can't change the history.
The thing I saw first was the photo, still photo, and then later somebody said, hey, there's a video.
So don't change the history.
So here's the fun part, and I can put no assessment of credibility on the next thing I tell you.
So a Twitter user, who shall remain nameless, took that photo and ran it through.
Apparently there's a piece of software which is for this purpose, to find out if something's been photoshopped.
And the way the software allegedly works is that it finds edges.
So if the edges look either too good or not good enough, that's telling you something, right?
So the sharpness of the edges Like, you know, let's say the difference between Kim Jong-un's body and then his background, that distinction.
If it's too sharp or too fuzzy, that should tell you something based on the software.
So this Twitter user took that photo, ran it through the software, and what did the software say?
Well, according to him, and I'm not an expert at analyzing the output of that kind of software, according to him, it's unambiguously a fake.
Somebody is yelling at me in all caps saying, you are angry, not funny.
What? You are angry, not funny in all caps.
Well, you get blocked for being unclear and yelling in capital letters.
All right. So, what do you think?
So if any of you can fact check me on this, I would put, I don't put any kind of reliability on what I just told you.
I don't know that there is such a thing as a piece of software that can reliably indicate whether something's a Photoshop.
I don't know if that's even a thing.
And if it is a thing, I don't know if it was analyzed correctly after it ran through it.
So, if somebody could, tell me, is there software that allows you to analyze a photo for Photoshop manipulation?
If that exists, run that photo of Kim Jong-un cutting the ribbon through it, and then tell me in your opinion, does it look like it told you something?
And let me know if that software seems reliable.
I haven't researched that. Anyway, that's just an open question.
This Flynn investigation stuff is just blowing my mind.
I don't know if you're having the same experience, but I made the mistake of watching the Netflix special about Waco at about the same time that all the Flynn information was coming out.
Man, you don't want to do those two things at the same time, do you?
I mean, you don't want to be watching the Waco Netflix special at the same time you're learning about the Flynn manipulations to get him to be guilty.
Let me talk about the Waco thing first.
So, if you're young or you just weren't following that, so Waco, there was a religious cult, David Koresh said he was the Messiah, and he got a bunch of people to believe him and live in this compound in Waco.
And he convinced the husbands that they should not sleep with their own wives, but only he could.
And he was doing them a favor by having sex with all their wives, while they couldn't, because something, something God.
So that's your basic setup.
Now, I recall when I heard the story, he was sleeping with children, and that it was a big old child sex ring.
But if you watch the special, that's a little less clear.
What is clear is that there was at least one case in which he apparently married a 14-year-old.
So, yes, that's bad.
According to the special, that was actually legal at the time in Texas, with the permission of the parents, which he had.
So in other words, there was no evidence of David Koresh breaking the law in Texas, at least in that specific way.
They had a bunch of weapons, which they were not using offensively and had no plans to use them offensively.
It was just for self-defense.
I think they had the answer for that, but that wasn't the big problem.
So anyway, the Waco showed the mismanagement of the FBI and the ATF and how basically they killed these people for having different lifestyles, basically.
They basically just slaughtered a bunch of people for disagreeing with their lifestyle, but living an otherwise legal life, they just didn't want to be bothered by other people.
Now you can disagree with all that they were doing, that would be perfectly fair, but The Netflix special did, I thought, a very balanced job of showing the good and bad on both sides, and so if you ever thought the FBI was good and the Branch Davidians were bad, that's going to really get messed up in your mind by the time you're done watching this.
You can't come away from that special without thinking that the government It has a lot of bad dudes in it who do bad things.
Now, given that context, of course, like all of you following this Flynn stuff, and if you just follow the Flynn part itself, it's just jaw-droppingly like you can't even believe it.
It doesn't feel like you could be living in a country where that could have happened in your lifetime.
And so I'm actually having trouble Incorporating this new information about Flynn into the part of my brain which holds reality.
Are you having that problem too?
And it's not as if we haven't been warned that this was all coming and we saw it coming from a mile away, but now that it's all confirmed, Beyond any doubt that I have.
Maybe somebody else has doubt, but all of my doubt has been removed about what was happening with the Flynn situation.
And it's obvious he was just targeted for destruction.
But then the second part is why?
Was it just that he was an important part of the Trump administration?
Well, here's where it gets interesting.
Andrew McCarthy, writing in National Review, basically makes the case that the reason Flynn was targeted for destruction is that he was the only one experienced enough in the new incoming Trump administration That he would have known their game and he would have been able to spot the fact that there was a coup being unfolding.
The coup meaning removing the president by simply looking and looking until you found something illegal or you forced some error.
So in other words, according to Andrew McCarthy, and it's amazing that he can write this article and people simply just read it.
Like you just read it, like it was no big deal, like you're reading about the weather.
It's like, oh, let's see what Andrew McCarthy's reading.
Uh-huh, uh-huh. Yeah, members of the government were overthrowing the legally elected president, Flynn, and then there's a lawyer, like, what?
What? How am I reading this story?
Like it's just an ordinary story.
These were people within the government who were literally trying to overthrow the legally elected government in my lifetime, recently.
They're still free people.
They're still walking around.
What? These people are guilty of obvious treason.
Treason. Something that would have destroyed the biggest country in the world in terms of the credibility of its government.
And they're still free people?
Oh my God!
It's mind-blowing.
Now, I think Andrew McCarthy goes further than the evidence does.
I don't think he would claim otherwise, so I don't think I'm disagreeing with him here.
But I disagree with the certainty of the conclusion.
Because the certainty of the conclusion that the reason that Flynn was targeted was because he was too capable, and if they got him out of the way, then Trump was just a sitting duck with nothing but inexperienced people around him to protect him.
I can't rule that out.
If you said to me, Scott, give me another hypothesis, I would say, well, maybe it's just as obvious as you think it is, which is they went after everybody they could get.
So they thought they could get Flynn.
They had something they thought they could get him on.
So they just went after him.
So it could have been they would have gone after anybody they could get.
Because we've watched the anti-Trumpers do exactly that.
If anybody shows a little bit of weakness, like right now they're going after Michael Caputo, because he had some humorously offensive tweets in his past, and that's it.
They were just offensive. They weren't anything else, nothing with an ism on it, no racism, sexism.
You could try. I mean, you could try to put that stuff on his tweets, but they're really not there.
He's just being humorously offensive.
You know, in character.
See that the bad guys target anybody who's prominent in the Trump world to try to take him out.
By the way, I'm predicting that in the next month that that's going to happen to me.
So here's my prediction.
Sometime in the next 30 days, I would expect to be taken down by somebody in the mainstream media or otherwise, probably a mainstream article.
And here's why. Because you noticed yesterday that the President retweeted me three times, and then four times if you count the fact that he also retweeted a tweet that I retweeted talking about Greg Gutfeld, what he was talking about on The Five.
So, presumably, people who are watching the President, and that's a lot of people, Probably scratched their head and said, why is the president retweeting this random guy so much?
And at some point they're going to say to themselves, we need to take this guy out because his voice is being influential.
Now, if you remember the 2016 election, And you may remember that Bloomberg did try to take me out.
So Bloomberg did a hit piece on me, and it was obvious that it was a hit piece from the start.
It wasn't anything but a hit piece, from the way it was set up to the way it went.
And I mistakenly thought that I was so clever that I would answer questions in a way that would be so disarming that even though I knew it was going to be a hit piece, it wouldn't work out the way they wanted it to.
So that's what I naively thought would happen.
What I didn't count on is them just making stuff up, taking things out of context, you know, the usual stuff.
So there was no way for me to avoid getting hit in a hit piece, even though I thought I might be clever enough to avoid it.
Now, if it were a live recorded interview, nobody's going to touch me in a live recorded interview.
Here's another prediction.
Nobody on the mainstream media will have me on to any kind of show between now and election day in a live, unedited interview.
Do you know why? I'm too good at it.
I'm too good at it.
They're not going to have me on.
So it's the same reason that Steve Cortez got kicked off of CNN. He didn't get kicked off of CNN because he didn't do a good job.
He got kicked off of CNN because he was a little too good.
Not a little too good.
He was way too good because he's really good at communicating.
So when Steve Cortez would make the case for the president, CNN would be waiting for all the stupid parts because they try to get the worst The worst representative of the other side, somebody who's not good at it, so that their case looks stronger.
And then Cortez will go on there and he'll just slay, perfectly reasonable, fact-based, shows his work, and they'll just be like, ah, maybe you shouldn't be on CNN anymore.
So they basically just didn't let him on anymore.
So that's my prediction. There are some people who are good enough at communicating that the mainstream media just won't have them on live.
But I do predict that they will try to entrap me, or maybe not even interview me, in which they'll take a bunch of stuff out of context and they'll dig up things that are fake news from the past, and they'll put together a little package to show that nobody should listen to me because of all those bad things I may or may not have done.
So that's my prediction.
I'm probably in the crosshairs by now.
Anyway, so Andrew McCarthy thinks that getting rid of Flynn was all part of the bigger plan to clear the way to get rid of Trump.
Do I buy that hypothesis, that theory?
And the answer is yes-ish, meaning certainly that had to be part of it.
I would say it's fairly safe to say that at least a little bit of their thinking was if you get rid of capable people around the president, you know, you can kind of whittle from the outside until you get them.
That seems fair, but I don't know if it's the whole story.
So here's a question I would raise.
Everything Andrew McCarthy said sounds reasonable to me.
All the pieces fit together.
It's shocking. Well, probably true, or at least true directionally.
I just feel like there's more to it.
Feels like there's a little extra context missing.
Maybe someday we'll have it.
Who knows? I saw a lawyer slash artist.
I looked at his profile so I know he's a lawyer.
Who fancies himself an artist.
His name is not important, but he made this tweet.
He said, talking about Joe Biden, and under the hashtag, hashtag GoJoe, people were saying good things about Biden, and I was having a good time reading how weak the compliments are for Biden.
Now think about the things that Trump supporters have said about Trump.
They're like so off the hook, complimentary.
I mean, to the point where it looks like people are in a cult.
When people praise President Trump, it sounds almost ridiculous.
It's so complimentary.
And here's somebody who's complimenting Joe Biden.
See if it rises to the same level of compliment.
Quote, I love his compassion, his integrity.
And the fact that he stands against, rather than praises, Nazis.
So this is the best thing that somebody could say about Joe Biden.
Three things. Compassion, integrity, And he stands against Nazis instead of praising them.
Now, of course, that third thing never happened, right?
That's based on the fine people hoax.
So one of the three things is based on the most debunked of fake news in the world.
So one of the things in favor of Joe Biden It's that he didn't do something that the President also didn't do.
In fact, nobody did.
It was just fake news.
So forget about the one that's fake news, but he's got these other two good points, that Joe's got compassion and integrity.
And I tweeted back, basically, if that's the best you could do, his compassion and his integrity, I tweeted back that that's the same qualities that my dog Snickers has, but I disagree with Snickers on policy.
In other words, if the best qualities you can come up with for why you like Joe Biden are words that you might use to describe your own dog, I don't know that there's a lot of enthusiasm there, right? Not a lot of enthusiasm there.
So, I would look for that.
Now, apparently the polls are still showing Joe Biden leading by a commanding amount.
And there's something interesting going on.
The Republicans are saying, eh, don't worry about it, the polls are fake.
But experts are saying, eh, don't be so quick to judge these polls as fake.
Because they're so consistent, they've been consistent for a long time, and they're consistent across polls, and it looks like Joe Biden has a clear path to the White House.
Unless, I'm just going to throw this out there, unless Republicans lie to pollsters.
And you know they do!
Now, I don't know if they lie so much that it can close a six-point gap.
I don't know that 2020 will be like 2016 and that the pollsters will be surprised on the final day.
Maybe. It could definitely be different this year.
But try to understand why.
Why in the world would Biden...
And there's really, there's just nothing there.
Like, he's a bag of dust Lying in the corner of your garage and he's leading the president who's got, you know, actually really good job performance according to his party, the people who voted for him.
So, somebody says you caught us.
I think there might actually be a difference in how Republicans answer the polls.
But here's the counterpoint.
Apparently, the 2018 midterms, people also thought the polls were wrong.
Because if you ask people, they'd say, ah, yeah, the polls are wrong.
Republicans are going to do well in the midterms.
That's what people thought.
But the polls were right.
So in the midterm, the polls were right.
Would they be so wrong?
Yeah, so it could be that Trump breaks all the rules so that polls about Trump are unusually imperfect.
I think that's very possible.
All right. Where is the slaughter meter?
The slaughter meter is at 200%, assuming that Biden is the actual eventual candidate on Election Day.
If Joe Biden is the candidate, On Election Day, President Trump, I don't know how he could lose, really.
It's hard for me to envision that the two of them could go toe-to-toe and that Joe Biden would be the one who's left.
I mean, I can't even picture it.
Yeah, that's true.
Did the Republicans do better than the Senate?
Somebody says in the comments.
But it was the House that people predicted the Republicans would do better, not just the midterms.
Joe hasn't shown his face?
Well, maybe it's because Joe Biden keeps merging with that That ventriloquist puppet, Walter.
Have you ever seen that puppet?
Who's the famous ventriloquist who always works Vegas?
He's got a puppet of an old guy who's got a permanently downturned mouth like this.
My mouth is permanently downturned like Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's mouth is permanently downturned when he's just at rest.
He looks like the saddest, unhappiest guy with his permanently downturned mouth.
Do you think we can elect a guy with a permanently frowny mouth?
I don't think so.
Somebody says the 2018 polls said there was going to be a big blue wave.
Yes, that is what I'm saying as well.
So let me say it clearer in case I was unclear.
When people were asked who they thought would win, Republicans thought that they would do well, even though the polls said they would not.
So the polls were accurate.
But the people who were asked if the polls would be accurate said, no, they won't be accurate, but they were.
I hope that's clear. Somebody says, Kamala, as VP, wouldn't change the dynamics?
Well, yeah, I mean, whoever the vice president is will change the dynamics, of course.
Of course it will.
Jeff Dunham, yes.
Jeff Dunham is the ventriloquist with Walter the dummy.
Thank you for that. All right.
So that is all I have for today.
It's more than enough.
More than enough to take you into the greatest, the greatest day all weekend.
One of the best, I think.
I think you're going to go forth and have a good, good day today.
Let's wait for more good news coming out.
I'm waiting for more and more great things to happen.