All Episodes
June 19, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:04:40
Episode 1032 Scott Adams: Why Your Vote is Irrelevant This Time, My Musical Debut, Evil Triangles, Baby Memes, Supreme Court

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: President Trump's Tulsa rally Supreme Court credibility Perfect prank, "Todler" meme, @CarpeDonktum Akira The Don puts my words to music Kamala's bill to make Juneteenth a national holiday Brian Stelter's accidentally funny Dr. Fauci tweet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum-bum boom-bum, bum-bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum, bum-bum-bum données, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, Bum, C*S nuts, nuts, Hey everybody come on in It's time. Time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
I hope you'll ignore this probably racist symbol on my shirt.
I haven't checked the news today, but if triangles can be racist, I'm pretty sure checkmarks, they're next.
We're coming for you, checkmarks.
Well, if you'd like to enjoy today's coffee with Scott Adams, what do you think you need to do it?
Yeah, that's right. Coffee.
Or a beverage of your choice.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a 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. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go! So, some days the news is funnier than other days.
And I love it when I wake up to a day of nothing but funny news.
It's all funny today.
I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the world there are tragedies and deaths, but the news no longer cares about that stuff.
We're into the racist baby stuff and more fun.
Alright, so here are some things that are not covered in the news today.
Is anybody protesting?
What exactly is going on with the coverage of the protests?
Did they stop?
And if they stopped...
Is that news? Or are they just planning for the weekends because it's easier to do them on weekends?
So I guess there are plans for violent type people to show up at the Trump rally in Tulsa.
How do you think that's going to go?
I've got a feeling Tulsa is going to be pretty lit.
Now, one of the things that's really tough for the anti-Trumpers Is that every time you see footage on television of Democrats destroying the world, and then you're going to juxtapose that to the president in front of a packed stadium full of law-abiding citizens, I'm starting to wonder if Biden even needs to run anymore.
We'll talk about the polls in a little bit.
How does anybody get their side elected if their team wants to show non-stop violence as the alternative to Trump, basically?
I mean, you could say they're happening at the same time, so it's not the alternative.
But it's going to feel like it.
It's going to feel like two teams.
One is setting your business on fire.
And the other team is trying to make America great again or whatever.
It's going to be a tough one.
And it makes me wonder if the networks are going to have to not cover it.
How is CNN going to cover this?
Because if they show it, it's just going to be all bad, you know, visually.
It'll be just devastating.
And I think that the public's...
Let's say the public's flexibility...
Or understanding in terms of protest and violence started out very flexible because everybody was, you know, shocked about George Floyd.
And if you saw somebody acting out because of that, you would say to yourself, well, I wish they wouldn't, but I kind of get it.
You know, you sort of understood at least.
You know, even if you wouldn't have done it, you could say, yeah, you know, I can see how that could happen.
But the longer it goes...
The less credible the protesters are, especially since there were lots of suggestions that have been floated, and everybody seems to be taking them seriously.
So, that should be good news.
But it won't stop the protests in Tulsa.
I would expect a good deal of violence when that happens, unfortunately.
So I put up a little poll on Twitter just before I got on, but there were still hundreds of responses, and I asked this question.
Knowing that all digital trails are discoverable, and that you can lose your job and your family for supporting Trump, would you tell a pollster if you plan to vote for Trump?
Now, of course, these are highly unscientific polls, but the only thing you can really tell with a Twitter poll is Does there exist a lot of people who have a certain opinion?
You can't even really know if it's more or less because it's that unscientific.
But you can tell if there are a lot of them.
I mean, that would come across pretty clearly.
By a ratio of about 2 to 1, last I checked, two people said they would not talk to the pollster for every one that would.
Ha ha ha! Two people said they would either lie to the pollster or not give them an answer for every one that would.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, there's been polling forever, blah, blah, blah.
We had the same problem, you know, in 2016.
Trump was unpopular then.
Oh no, it's not the same.
It's not even close to the same as 2016.
In 2016, did you think you would lose your job for being a Trump supporter?
I mean, I'm sure people did, but it probably wasn't the top thing you were worrying about, right?
At the moment, in 2020, it might be the top thing you're worrying about.
There may be people all over the country who are saying, Oh God, I hope somebody didn't see that tweet I did two years ago.
I could get fired.
So, at the moment, the fear is real.
What have I told you is the most motivating persuasion bar none?
Nothing is more persuasive than this one thing.
Fear. Yeah, fear.
Fear is always the most persuasive.
Because you have to protect yourself first before you can do anything.
You can't eat if you think you're going to get killed right away.
So given that a real fear, this is not hypothetical, there is an actual real fear that you could lose everything, your friends, your job, etc.
I don't think we've ever had a polling situation that was this rife with possible mischief.
I don't know if it's mischief so much as it is self-preservation.
But here's the other thing that changed.
Four years ago, were you as aware as you are now?
Of course you were aware.
But there's a difference between knowing something is true sort of intellectually and having it just forced to the front of your brain.
Where your brain can't see anything else.
That's really different.
In both cases, you knew it was the case.
There's no new information.
And I'll tell you what I'm talking about in a moment.
But there's a difference between just knowing it's true and just having it overwhelm your brain.
You'll act differently in those two cases.
And what we've watched for the last four years, especially with the Russia collusion stuff, is that absolutely no digital trail is safe.
No database can't be hacked.
No server can't be hacked.
And we've seen a complete willingness of people to share and dox people.
So the things that are really different, you always knew the government could find out anything, right?
You knew they could track your phone.
You knew that on some level they might be collecting all of your digital data, etc.
But it wasn't front of mind.
But if you turn on the TV and every single day there's a new story, Of somebody's email, text message, you know, data got hacked.
Every frickin' day, that knowledge that used to be just something you knew is now lighting up your whole brain.
Like, your brain is on fire with the idea that there's no privacy for digital communication.
And it's true.
There is no privacy. I've said this before.
The only privacy that we'll have in the future is being boring.
If you're boring, nobody wants to look at your stuff anyway.
So being boring is literally the only protection you'll have that you can feel confident about.
As long as nobody cares about you, they won't look at your stuff.
But even then, of course they would.
I've got a question for you.
Has the Supreme Court just turned into a popularity poll?
And I'll ask you this question, because I don't really follow the Supreme Court.
I just follow the headlines when they're in it.
But can somebody who knows something answer this question?
When was the last time the Supreme Court had a ruling that went against popular opinion?
And let's say popular opinion had to be at least...
Sorry, I'm having terrible allergy problems...
And let's say for the purposes of this, that popular opinion had to be at least 55% in favor of whatever position.
Whatever the topic is, it doesn't matter.
But when was the last time the Supreme Court voted against the public majority?
Does anybody know?
Because I feel like it's stopped happening.
I'm not entirely sure it matters.
Honestly. I actually don't think it matters.
Somebody says Roe vs.
Wade. I doubt that's true.
Could be. Brown vs.
Board of Education. Yeah, you have to go back pretty far.
Somebody says the travel ban.
I don't know about that.
All right, well, there's some questions.
There might be some that were lesser issues that people weren't too worked up about, and then maybe in those cases the court feels safe to go against it.
But I feel like there's some kind of weird self-preservation happening with the Supreme Court.
While all of our institutions have lost their credibility, I feel like the Supreme Court might be trying to, and again, this is mind-reading, so remember, I always warn you, you can't know what people are thinking.
You just can't. They can tell you, and they may or may not be telling you the truth, but you can't know what strangers are thinking.
It's just not a thing.
But we can speculate.
There's something that makes you scratch your head and say, well, I got some questions.
Somebody says Obamacare.
I'm seeing lots of examples go by.
But let me just put this proposition out there.
The Supreme Court...
Might need to maintain its credibility even more importantly than getting a decision right.
Would you agree that's true?
You know, if you're a Chief Justice or any of the members of the Supreme Court, would your priorities be that the most important thing is to maintain the credibility of the court itself independent of what the actual decision is?
Because I feel like that is the priority.
Meaning that if I heard that was their priority, I would say, oh, yeah, you know, when you think about it, it probably does need to be the priority.
Because the way that the court can maintain its credibility is, of course, going with the majority.
That's probably better than going with the minority, right?
If the court sided with the minority of the public, I don't know it could last.
It's got to be with the public at least often enough on the big stuff that the public says, oh, I don't like all of your decisions, but usually you're with the public.
Now, that's not how the public should think.
The public should not judge the credibility of the court.
by whether it agrees with what they would have done.
That's the worst way to judge them.
What do we do? Because we're not very sophisticated overall.
And so we look at the court and we say, well, it disagreed with me three out of four times.
I guess they're not credible.
That's exactly what you would think.
You would think that they had no value at all if they did their job perfectly, followed the Constitution, followed the law, and just interpreted that law.
If it didn't agree with your opinion, you'd say they weren't credible.
So I've got a feeling that the court is always balancing these two competing and very, very important issues.
Because if the Supreme Court lost its credibility below, let's say, some, there's probably some hypothetical support level beyond which the institution's in trouble, I think they've got to stay above the line.
And every now and then they might have to You know, nudge a decision toward keeping their own credibility if it's at all close.
Now, I'm not suggesting that they do that consciously, but I would.
If I were on the Supreme Court, I would say, quite reasonably, I don't think there's anything unreasonable about this, I would say, you know, the worst thing that could happen is to lose the trust of the public in the Supreme Court.
Because the Supreme Court...
They end up being the tiebreaker for a lot of stuff.
If you lose all your credibility, there's always criticism, but if you lose all of your credibility and you're the tiebreaker, that's pretty dangerous.
It's dangerous.
Because what do you do?
I mean, if you don't have that ultimate credible tiebreaker.
So, if I were on the Supreme Court, I would sometimes do things just to remain credible, even if it wasn't exactly where I think the Law is pointing.
Because it is a greater good.
I think there's a case to be made for that.
Alright. I provocatively tweeted the other day that in this election, the upcoming election, your votes won't matter.
Now here's what I mean by that.
These are some things we can predict with complete certainty.
We can We know with complete certainty that there will be allegations of vote raking on both the left and the right.
Do you agree? So far?
So far, we're all on the same page.
There's a 100% chance that both the left and the right, no matter what the outcome is of the election, independent of the outcome, both the left and the right will have examples, or at least allegations, of election tampering.
Election, suppressing the votes of black voters, for example.
Now, whether or not these are good examples, whether or not they really happen, whether or not they're true or not, doesn't matter.
They will be believed.
Are you with me so far?
That when the Republicans have whatever allegations you know they're going to have, the Republicans will think, well, that's probably true.
And it might be true, because it'll be based on anecdotes and specific stories.
Could well be true.
You know the left will have their anecdotes and stories, and they'll be able to point to things.
And you know the left will completely believe it.
Just like the right completely believes their side on pretty much everything.
So we're going to have this situation where there's a guaranteed question about the result.
Probably we've had this sort of complaint every election from the beginning of time.
Probably there's never an election, a national election, in which there isn't at least somebody saying it was rigged.
Or at least somebody's pointing at a problem.
Pretty much universal.
And we always get by it, right?
It seems like it doesn't stop the system.
A little bit of complaining, but we'll live with the result anyway.
Because overall the system is credible.
You know, Americans do pretty much trust the voting system even though it's got all these irregularities.
That's what it used to be.
I don't think that's the case anymore.
Here's what changed.
The ability of the press, the media, the manipulators behind the curtains, the ability to ramp up people's emotions is at a super weaponized level, even way beyond where it was in 2016.
I would say that we've advanced A lot, really a lot, in our ability to set people's brains on fire and make them mad or excited or afraid or anxious or greedy or something.
And so, what we're going to go into is a situation where there's a 100% chance that the left will feel, let's say that they lose, let's say Trump gets elected, hypothetically.
What will the left say?
They'll say the vote was rigged, of course, because the polls will say it couldn't have happened.
You see where this is going?
The polls will say it's not possible.
So if Trump wins, and there's widespread allegations, there always will be, of election tampering, what will the left do?
They'll stage a coup.
Now, This is, again, a safe prediction.
Why? Because they already staged a coup.
Several. In fact, it's non-stop coup stuff.
You know, the impeachment was a coup.
The Russia collusion stuff was a coup attempt.
The 25th Amendment stuff is a coup.
All of these anonymous alleged bullshit books about what really happened in the room with Trump, they're all coup attempts.
They're all coup attempts.
They're just, in many cases, completely legal.
Just because I call it a coup, don't assume it's illegal.
They're just using every lever, every button, every mechanism Just, they're throwing the kitchen sink at it, to take him out of office without the benefit of a vote.
Now, I'm going to use the word coup to mean removing a president in any mechanism other than just a normal vote.
So will there be a coup, or at least a coup attempt, if Trump wins the election?
And I would say the answer is 100%.
There's really no chance it wouldn't happen.
Does anybody even disagree with that?
I can't imagine anybody would disagree with that statement.
Now, we don't know what it would look like.
It could be another massive fake news story.
It could be like Russia collusion, where the British government runs an operation against the United States, and we blame it on Russia.
I didn't say that.
Just ignore that last sentence.
Didn't happen. Go on with your business.
Nothing to see here. So it could be something like that.
It could be completely different.
But one thing that it might be is violent.
In other words, the protesters are doing this giant test run.
To see if you can flood the streets with people and make a difference, and apparently it does.
It works. They're willing to burn down the whole country.
So Trump will be in an interesting situation, which is if he has to use force to stop a coup, which won't look like a coup, it'll just look like demonstrators calling him a racist, that will be interesting.
But I think that's where we're heading.
So in all likelihood, my current estimates are 100% chance that Trump will be re-elected unless something big changes between now and Election Day.
Will something big change between now and Election Day?
Of course it will!
Are you kidding me?
Something big will change next week and the week after and the week after.
So these kinds of predictions are kind of useless because they're straight line predictions in a world that can't go straight line.
The world doesn't even know how to go in a straight line.
And then I predicted that if Trump is elected, there's a 50% chance that the coup will succeed.
I think there was a 50% chance that the Russia collusion thing or the Ukrainian thing or some other thing could have succeeded.
I think there was a good 50% chance.
It just didn't go their way.
Alright, one of the funniest stories is, so Carpe Dunctum did a meme video showing some footage of a toddler, I think they might have been three years old, I can't tell the ages of little kids, but they were sort of barely-can-walk kind of toddlers.
And one was white, one was black, and they were best friends, and they were hugging on the sidewalk, and then they happily go running down the street.
Now what Carpe Dunctum did, which was brilliant, is he showed that in reverse order with the clips without the part where the kids are obviously best friends, hugging each other and loving each other.
Instead, shows them running down the street.
But because the little black toddler had started first, it could be interpreted as if the little white toddler is chasing the black one.
See if you didn't see them hugging just before that.
Now, The funny part is that Carpedonctum adds a fake chyron, you know, the words at the bottom of the screen, to make it look like it's a CNN report and that the chyron says, you know, white racist baby chases black baby or something like that.
And here's the funny part.
I've told you this before.
The perfect prank is one that only the victim of the prank...
Can't tell it's a prank. That's what makes a joke really good.
It's one thing just to mock people and here's a funny picture.
That's sort of one dimensional.
But if you can come up with a perfect prank only the subject of the prank can't tell it's a prank.
And the reason is they can't tell parody from reality.
And if you can find somebody who literally can't tell the difference between reality and parody Then you do a prank that's a parody and they just can't tell.
But everybody else can tell because they're not hypnotized in the same way.
So when I watched it, honestly, I couldn't even imagine how anybody would think this was true.
It's so obviously not true that I just registered as a joke and I laughed at it.
I would guarantee that...
Close to 100% of Trump supporters and Fox News watchers would look at that video and immediately, immediately go, haha, it's a joke.
Probably 100%.
But the New York Times and CNN and all the fact checkers had to fact check it for their audience.
I'll bet you there was not one conservative publication that fact-checked it because they didn't have to.
Fact-check this statement.
So here's my statement.
There probably was no conservative publication that didn't even occur to them to fact-check it.
Why would they?
Because they don't think anybody would be confused by it.
Of course, they cover the story of the others fact-checking it, but I think the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times, I don't know how many people on the left fact-checked this thing, but just stop and pause for a moment that there were enough people on the left who thought it would be believable,
wait for this, who thought it would be perfectly believable that CNN would run a story, a video of two toddlers chasing each other, One chasing the other.
And call the one toddler a racist baby.
Now, their audience apparently thinks that's possible, which is frickin' hilarious.
So, of course, it got labeled by Twitter for being misleading.
Perfect. It got fact-checked everywhere.
Perfect. It got tweeted by the president.
Perfect. Perfect.
It became a national story.
Perfect. And it was short and, you know, sometimes memes can go on a little bit too long.
That's my only complaint about the political memes.
I like them short. This was just the right length.
Perfect visual. And part of the reason I think they were complaining so much about it is that it was really powerful visually.
When you watch the two kids hugging, You can just feel their joy.
These are two little kids who are really, genuinely happy to see each other.
I mean, they really like each other.
And it immediately reminds you that that's how you started, right?
Like you immediately go to your baby self and say, oh yeah, there probably was a time, not that you remember it, right?
But there probably was a time That I couldn't even tell the difference between black people and white people.
Like I didn't even know it was important.
It wasn't a variable.
Everybody looks different somehow.
Why was I going to pick out that one difference?
It didn't occur to me. That was my friend Bob.
So it's really powerful the way it works on your mind.
So this isn't just a funny meme.
It's hilarious.
It's well crafted. It's the right size.
Got the president's attention, got national news, got a controversy about it, got removed from a lot of places.
Ah, man, you can't hit a longer, long ball than that.
So this one I will elevate to masterpiece status.
If they were giving awards for memes, this would be your Academy Award for 2020.
So congratulations to Carpe Duncan.
And by the way, if you're not watching...
Carpe Dunctum's career, how it sort of evolved from the first election.
It's really fun to watch because he, as well as many others, are just putting together their talent stacks and just watching it come together.
It's just fun to watch.
It's a great show.
Speaking of art and speaking of masterpieces, this next thing I'm going to tell you It's maybe the hardest thing I've ever tried to communicate.
I spent probably 30 minutes last night trying to compose a tweet on this topic, and in the end I sort of gave up.
Because there are some things that by their weird nature can't be explained by some people.
In other words, it's something you could explain easily, but I can't.
Here's the situation.
You've probably seen on Twitter AkiraTheDon.
His username is A-K-I-R-A-T-H-E-D-O-N. And he makes music.
One of the things he's made, and there was a little clip that he's released, is that he's taken the audio from my periscopes...
And he's taken selected clips from audios, especially of the periscopes that are not political, so that there's nothing political in the music.
But when I talk about the user interface for reality, for example, and he put it to music.
Now, here's why I couldn't compose the tweet, because I need more time to talk about it like I'm going to do now.
If I just told you that somebody whose music you are not familiar with, necessarily, Had put my audio from my periscope to music, what would be your first impression of how good that would be?
Not very good, right?
Wouldn't that be your assumption?
Your first assumption would be, I don't know if I want to listen to that.
I mean, maybe for curiosity, but it's not going to be like art or music, right?
I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
You're going to be surprised.
All right, now here's the part that I couldn't tell.
When I listened to it, it actually just blew me away.
But I couldn't tell if it's because I was listening to my own voice.
Because think how powerful that would be to hear yourself talking to yourself in a way you weren't expecting, so you don't know what's going to come.
You know, it's because the order of it and the presentation was new to me as well.
Even though it was my words, it was somewhat new to me because of the way it was composed.
So I wasn't sure If what was happening is I was just having a personal experience that would not be in any way generalized to other people.
So I tweeted it out saying as little about it as possible because I couldn't describe it.
And I wanted to see what the comments were.
It turns out people really like it.
People really like it.
And I was trying to figure out why.
And I'll take my best crack at it.
You know, you've seen the popularity of mashups where you'll have, let's say, a rapper be doing, you know, some kind of rap part of a song, and then maybe Rihanna or somebody would come in and do a more musically, I don't know, I don't have the musical terms, but you know what I'm talking about.
So you'd have somebody on a completely different style, a rapper style, mix them with somebody who is more classically, you know, a singer, and somehow it's better.
I don't know why. I've thought about it for a long time.
It's like, why is this better when you put two completely different things together?
It doesn't quite make sense, but it is.
I mean, I listen to it, and I go, okay, that's better.
I don't know why. I think it has something to do with, in that case, you're waiting for the part you're waiting for.
There might be some anticipation about it.
I don't know. Maybe there's some context or contrast that makes it a thing.
But... When I listen to this, here's my best guess about why it had an effect on me.
As you know, I'm a trained hypnotist and a very experienced communicator.
So when you hear my words, they tend to carry more weight than an untrained communicator.
So if you said to yourself, it's just somebody talking and they put it to music, It wouldn't be this.
Because even when I hear myself, sometimes I play back my periscopes just to see if I can learn anything, you know, to improve them.
And when I'm playing back my own periscopes, you know, I see the density in them that I didn't know I had when I started.
So when I was doing it, I wasn't aware of it, but when I watch it, I can watch it like a spectator.
And I'll think, well, that's pretty dense.
But also, I realize that I'm using massively, and I don't even do it consciously, the techniques of hypnosis.
So, while I don't think that was his intention, to make a hypnosis slash musical product, because everything I do is sort of infused with persuasion, that the little clips of my voice, you know, forget about them musically, They just activate a different part of your brain.
And so what you're feeling is that the text is activating one part of your brain while the music is activating another.
And it's two parts of your brain that you just don't activate at the same time.
And that's why it has a weird effect on you.
Because you haven't had those two parts of your brain simultaneously activated.
It's not the same.
It's just hearing somebody talk.
Because, again, I've infused it without trying.
I infuse it with a lot more weight than normal words.
And it's just because of training and technique.
Tony Robbins would do the same thing without trying.
So I recommend it.
At the same time, I just don't know how to describe it because it's just not like anything else.
Scott speaks perfectly.
That's a callback to...
I told you the story when I'd lost my voice for three and a half years, and I literally couldn't communicate.
At least, I could make noise, but I couldn't make full sentences and stuff.
And my affirmation at the time was that I would speak perfectly.
Now, I don't speak perfectly, because perfect is a standard you can't really achieve.
But, nonetheless, it is true that my voice is on a...
A work of art that's music.
Now, I can't tell if he enhanced my voice or he just edited out anything that was weak-sounding, but it does sound better than my normal voice.
I don't know how he did that, so there might be some digital magic about that.
He might have auto-tuned it, possibly.
If he listened to it, is there somebody smart enough to know that my voice was auto-tuned or even a little bit?
I can't tell. But there does seem to be a little more character in my voice than what I would normally hear if I just played it back.
Could be in my imagination, so I don't know.
Yes, so it's on Spotify.
So you can look for it.
The single is called, It Feels Like It Works.
So look for Akira the Don, A-K-I-R-A, the, D-O-N. And this should pop up with your Google searches.
And there's a whole album coming that I haven't heard yet, but impressive.
Amy Klobuchar said she was dropping out of the running to be the vice presidential pick because she thinks that Biden should pick a woman of color.
So, throwing Elizabeth Warren under the bus at the same time.
Now, because you are a seasoned political observer, what do you make of the story that Amy Klobuchar Withdrew from consideration to be the vice presidential pick.
What does it mean that she withdrew and in withdrawing said that she supports a woman of color?
Let me read between the lines.
The choice is already made.
Do you think Amy Klobuchar gives up?
I don't think so.
Maybe. Maybe.
But there's nothing about her vibe or anything that I've seen about her.
I have actually a very positive, very positive overall opinion of Amy Klobuchar, and I have since the beginning.
Although on day one, I didn't think she had the charisma.
So she's wanting in charisma, but that's a, you know, I'm not sure you can fix charisma.
But In terms of being a serious, capable, highest-level politician, I always thought she was very good.
And she was certainly smart enough to know that if the selection had already been made, the smartest thing she could do is act as though the selection had not already been made, and then drop out by recommending a person of color Biden presumably has already picked Kamala Harris and everybody knows it.
Then when he does pick her, people are going to say, oh, that's exactly what Amy Klobuchar advised him to do.
She wins. So in other words, she already knows she lost the race to be vice president.
It's obvious to me she already knows that's over.
The best thing she could salvage from this is to predict or advise or suggest the thing that's already happened.
Because you're not going to be wrong if you suggest something that's already happened.
And I'm sure that Conley Harris has been selected at this point.
Now anything could change.
She could be deselected.
I don't think that would be the first time a vice presidential pick got altered at the last minute.
But at the moment it looks like she's the pick.
And here's something that Harris did today which reminded me of Trump.
I've told you before that I think her advisors are now the world-class type.
When she was running just as a candidate in the primaries, she was a hot mess in terms of her messaging, her body language, her unconfident laugh.
It was just a mess.
And all of that just suddenly changed.
And even her strategy I thought was weak.
But even her strategy is better.
So I always tell you that Trump picks up free money.
I use that as an analogy.
Free money meaning that Trump will do the thing that is all upside, no downside, and for some reason nobody else thought to do it.
It was just right there.
It was just obvious. It's just right here.
Pick up the free money. Anybody?
Anybody? So that's why Harris did.
She's planning to introduce a bill that declares Juneteenth a national holiday.
Now, your first question should be, why her?
Did nobody else think of that?
If President Trump had suggested this first to make Juneteenth a national holiday, I don't know if there's any resistance from Republicans.
I haven't heard of any.
I don't know if there would be. But I would consider this under the condition that Republicans would generally support this.
And I don't know if that's the case yet.
I haven't seen any opinions.
But I would say that in this case, if that's true, and if, let's say, Harris introduces it, let's say it gets passed, especially because of the mood of the country, maybe it just sails through.
I would say that would be an error on the President's part.
It would be an error because he didn't do it.
I mean, if this thing is going to get passed, the president should have done it.
That was just free money.
But if it doesn't get passed, then I would know why he didn't do it, right?
So we'll wait to see if it gets passed.
But the fact that she saw the free money and picked it up tells me that maybe Democrats sort of got out of the way and said, all right, we want to help the future ticket, so the rest of us will just back up.
Let Harris go forward.
Get the attention.
Free money. So whoever is advising Harris, you are nailing it, my friends.
You are nailing it.
You know how much I've mocked her for her laugh, her subconscious laugh, or self-conscious laugh?
There's a video in which, I forget who was interviewing her, and...
The question they asked is, how could she be potentially, well, how could she support Biden, or even be in consideration as a VP choice, when she was so savage to him at the debates?
Now, that's going to be the big question, right?
You know everybody's going to ask Kamala Harris about her prosecution background, and they're going to ask her about throwing Biden under the bus as being a racist.
Obviously, he's not. And That'll be the question.
So you know she prepared for the question.
And you know, I believe, she has now the highest level advisors who would have given her the right answer.
And so the question is asked and she just starts laughing because it's so ridiculous.
But she's laughing at her own answer and she goes, it was a debate.
And then she laughs. And then she says, a debate.
And laughs some more.
She goes, it was scheduled debate.
We were debating.
Because that's what you do when you debate.
And then she laughed again.
But here's what's different.
The laugh didn't look like the old laugh.
If she fixed her laugh, which I wasn't even sure it could be done.
I thought it maybe could be done, but I think she fixed it.
Because this was not a self-conscious laugh.
It was a confident laugh.
She was so confident, rightly so, because her answer was a home run.
The correct answer is, it was a debate.
Follow up, it was a debate.
Want me to add some detail to the answer?
It was a debate.
Can you go deeper? Yes, it was a debate.
And laugh every time. You can't beat that.
You could not beat that for a perfect way to handle that situation.
Laugh and call it a debate.
Never go deeper.
Period. End of story.
I should not say period.
End of story. I mock that.
It's too easy. It's in your brain and then it just comes out.
And when it comes out, you go, ah, I wish I hadn't done that.
So, watching her go from a self-conscious, nervous-looking laugh to a laugh that is so confident, she won't even stop doing it in public.
Like, she just laughed and called, it's a debate.
You're silly. It's a debate.
Let me remind you, because I know this is going to happen.
When I say good things about any female politician, somebody in the comments will always say, it doesn't matter who it is, oh, you have a crush on her, you love her, oh, you have such a, you know, you want to be with her.
So I'm going to block anybody who does that.
It just doesn't add anything.
All right. Brian Stelter, you all know him, CNN, had one of the funniest tweets accidentally.
He said, Dr. Fauci diagnosing an American problem.
Quote, this is from Fauci.
There's a combination of an anti-science bias that people are, for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable.
They just don't believe science and they don't believe authority.
Well, is there anything that could have happened in the last, I don't know, last 12 months or so?
Anything that would make the public less trusting of experts and authority and science?
I'm racking my brain now.
Anybody? Can anybody think of anything?
An example of some time that the The experts were not exactly right.
I'm coming up blank.
I got nothing. Now, recall my earlier story about Carpe Dunctum's meme.
The reason it worked is that CNN literally can't tell the difference between parody and reality because they deal with so much fake news The fake news is sort of the hybrid of parody and reality.
It looks so similar.
So Brian Stelter tweeted this maybe like it wasn't a joke.
Like the rest of the country wouldn't laugh at this out loud.
You can't read this and not laugh at it.
But I don't think Brian Stelter knew...
That half of the country would laugh out loud because his network has been feeding us a non-stop diet of fake news from experts.
Every one of the experts who lied to us or got things wrong was featured on CNN. Every one of them.
Every one of them. Often.
So, I mean, this is parody and reality merging again.
All right. Here's the funniest comment in a tweet that I've seen in a while.
And I have to warn you that I have a very low-brow sense of humor.
So this was some low-brow humor that's actually kind of clever that made me laugh.
I'm doing this cartoon, most of you have seen it, called Robots Read News.
And I put most of them behind a subscription wall on the Locals platform.
So if you want to see all of them, especially the edgier ones that I don't put on Twitter, you can see them by being a subscriber on Locals.
L-O-C-A-L-S. And you can see the link in my profile on Twitter.
But anyway, the comic...
I did a comic mocking the claims in the John Bolton book and the essence of the comic was that the robot was reading the news and he reported that the book says that President Trump was taking a shit on the Resolute desk while asking questions about nuking the moon.
Now, it's funny because the Bolton book is so ridiculous and so filled with obvious lies, at least obvious to me, That there's nothing that you couldn't expect would be in it.
So I said that he was shitting on the Resolute desk while asking about nuking the moon.
And here's the comment I got from unstumpable Chuck Testa, who's a Trump supporter.
He says, that's it?
I baked desk shitting into the cake when I voted for the guy?
I've been laughing for two days at that.
I baked cake...
No, I baked desk shitting into the cake when I voted for the guy.
That's so perfect.
Because again, the reason it's funny is because if you were CNN and you read this comment, you wouldn't know he was joking.
You actually wouldn't know he was joking If you were Brian Stelter, you'd look at this and say, I think they would vote for him if he shit on the Resolute desk.
And maybe they would.
Well, so we're also in the news.
Here's a tweet by President Trump.
Let's see if you can see the foreshadowing of this tweet.
Now, I think the president does this a lot.
He sort of, he broadcasts or he suggests where things are going before the decisions are made, you know, sort of testing them in advance.
And here's, I think this is a test balloon.
So Trump tweeted, it was not Ambassador Lighthizer's fault yesterday in committee, in that perhaps I didn't make myself clear that That the US certainly does maintain a policy option under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China.
Thank you.
The President just tweeted that we're keeping open the option under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China.
Do you see that news on any of the front pages?
It's the biggest news of the last 50 years?
Here's what I think.
I think the President has been so rightly embarrassed by China's unwillingness to be a good negotiating partner, and I think the President Gave them every opportunity to be friends, which is exactly the right way to do it.
I don't think the president should have gone hard at China, should never have used the word decoupling, never.
The president never should have used the word decoupling, in the sense of maybe it's an option, two years ago.
If he had said it two years ago, I would have been, whoa, that's crazy.
You're negotiating with them.
We don't know if it's going to work out yet.
Maybe it'll work out. Maybe you can get something done.
It'll be hard, but maybe it can be done.
So you certainly wouldn't say decoupling two years ago.
You go in with friend, friend, friend.
You're my friend, President Xi.
I respect you. And then you see what you can do.
Now, what was the net effect of the President's completely smart, strategic We're good to go.
Because now that he's completely drained any options of them being good players and responsible and good world citizens, that's all gone now.
So now he can just put it on the table.
Give us what we fucking want or go die.
Which is what this tweet said.
You have to read between the lines.
Let me read it to you and then I'll read between the lines.
So he's saying that the U.S. certainly does maintain a policy option under various conditions of a complete decoupling from China.
Under various conditions.
Do you know what the various condition is?
Give us what we need or go fucking die.
We're decoupling.
That's it. It's no longer a negotiation, people.
Now it's an ultimatum.
He's putting it in the form of diplomatic talk.
Well, if you do this, we'll do this.
But it's now an ultimatum.
He just put decoupling on the table.
And China, if you're listening, China, I think you are listening.
And one of the questions you might be having, China, because I'm pretty sure they have people who monitor most of the political talk in the United States.
I don't know if they watch me in particular, but let's say they do.
China. You're probably wondering, is that a bluff?
Would the president actually decouple from China?
I mean, I know it's something that people say on Twitter, but the president just used that word.
Is he bluffing?
Well, let me say it to you as clearly as I possibly can, China.
Nope. Nope.
Zero percent chance he's bluffing.
Zero. There's no chance.
If you think he's bluffing about decoupling, you're wrong.
You're fucking wrong.
This is real. Now, of course, it depends, like he says, on various conditions.
So China can always offer concessions and take decoupling off the table.
They have an option. But it's pretty clear that they don't have any intention of doing that, would you say?
It's pretty clear that they're just going to push and take advantage anywhere they can, and you can't really do business with somebody who has that strategic attitude.
You can't do business with somebody who only wants to screw you and is looking for every opening to do it.
That's just not somebody you can do business with.
So you have to decouple if you're dealing with something like that.
So yeah, the president doesn't tweet this unless he means it.
He's absolutely serious, China, that when you don't give us what we want, and you won't, you won't, you know you won't, he's going to decouple.
And it will be the greatest thing that ever happened to this country because China has been dragging us down for a long time.
It took 40% of our manufacturing.
Well, we're getting it back.
We're going to take it back, China.
You got problems?
They're your problems now.
Let's see.
The John Bolton bombshell is that, according to John Bolton, who is a mind reader, I don't know if you knew this, but John Bolton, among his many qualities, can read the inner thoughts of the President. can read the inner thoughts of the President.
I can't do it.
Maybe you can't.
But John Bolton can.
And he wrote a whole book about his mind reading of the president's inner intentions.
And here's what he found. He made a bombshell claim in his book that President Trump, he wanted to do good things for the country, but only for his own selfish purposes.
Yeah. Yeah, the president was trying to get a good trade deal with China just to get elected.
I don't know. You know, this is almost as bad as, like, a store selling you a product, and they say it's good for you.
They say you'll like the product and it will have advantages and solve your problems.
That's what they say when they sell you things.
But I have a suspicion that stores sell things for selfish purposes.
It's really not about the customer.
I hate to tell you that.
Because people you buy things from probably, they say, hey, this will be good for you.
I think you'll be happy if you buy this.
If you have this car, you're going to enjoy it.
I'm starting to think that's not why they do it.
I feel like people don't sell things for your benefit.
It's almost like there's some kind of selfish thing they're trying to do.
Do they make money somehow by selling you stuff instead of just doing it for your benefit?
I'm confused by capitalism.
And politics too.
Because according to John Bolton, there are people that we've elected completely unknowingly You know, we thought we were electing good people, but I'm shocked.
There are people in the government who do things in public that are good for the public, but not for us.
It's not for us.
It's for themselves.
Bastards. Well, the NBA has a new plan for getting back to games.
Two interesting features of this.
One, of course, is that they won't have a crowd.
And it looks like they're looking to pipe in artificial crowd noise, maybe from a video game or something.
So this is a real plan.
They've got artificial crowd noise.
And it looks like they're just going to, you know, sample it over top of the game.
Now, I am not in favor of that.
I would recommend, and I think they could probably do it quickly...
An app or some kind of a model where the people working at home can actually cheer at home.
And then if you're watching the game on TV and you go, yay!
Your yay goes into your phone or whatever device you're using.
It gets summed up with all the other people who are chanting and clapping.
And then nobody hears your specific voice.
It just gets summed up as crowd noise and presented in real time.
Would there be a delay? There might be a lag.
That could be a problem. Because you do need instant noise.
I think you could do it without the delay.
Probably, yeah. Or at least without much.
So I would like to see real crowd noise as from your living rooms summed up into crowd noise.
That would actually be cool.
But if you were in a game and you knew that there was a guy with a button and he was just pushing the cheering button every time there was a basket, How quickly will that bother you?
Now, it might not bother you, because if you've watched sitcoms forever, they have the laugh track, and it seems to work.
Now, Seinfeld famously did not have a laugh track.
Did you know that? Seinfeld famously did not have a laugh track.
Nor do movies back when funny movies were being made.
I don't know when the last funny movie was made.
But back when movies were funny, of course a movie doesn't have a laugh track.
So you don't need one.
But it's definitely true that it's been tested, and for some segment of the population, for some kinds of content, it does seem to help.
You know, the scripted half-hour comedies on TV. But those are dying out, and I think the laugh track might be part of why they were less popular.
Talk about free money.
Here's one that Trump did.
He was asked about Colin Kaepernick and if he should get his job back.
Now, you all remember the story.
He called the people who were kneeling and disrespecting the flag, in Trump's opinion, he thought they were all bastards.
No, sons of bitches.
They're all sons of bitches, which, of course, It was interpreted as racist, which it wasn't, because I'm pretty sure sons of bitches come in every flavor.
But Trump said that he thinks Kaepernick should get a job if he's still good enough.
So he didn't have an opinion on his skills, but he said, yeah, I think a team should hire him.
That was exactly the right answer.
Because President Trump is what kind of president?
What kind of president is President Trump?
Jobs. He's the jobs president.
If you ask the jobs president, hey, should this black guy, I'm just gonna say black guy because that's the context of the story, should this black guy get a job?
What should the jobs president say?
There's only one right answer.
Yup. If he's qualified, yup.
Unambiguously. Now, that has nothing to do with his disagreement with kneeling.
But to separate the question of should Kaepernick get a job, you're the job's fucking president.
If he had said that Kaepernick should not get a job because he disagrees with the kneeling, I don't know if I could have supported this president.
Because you know what I want?
I want people to have jobs, Kaepernick or not.
I've been pro-Kaepernick since the beginning, much to your displeasure.
I will reiterate that just because I'm talking about it.
Being pro-Kaepernick means not necessarily agreeing with all of his political points or even the way he did it.
I'm just saying that he was effective.
He seems to be the real deal because you don't see him...
I don't know. He's still on point, on message.
He seems genuine.
He seems passionate. It's a cause that has real concern.
I like him as a patriot, honestly.
I like him as a rebel.
I like him as a patriot. I don't really follow football.
I don't care about his athletic abilities.
But I agree with the president.
Absolutely. Absolutely. If he's qualified for the job, he should absolutely get a job.
Very much so. And in fact, I think it would be good for the game.
I think I'd watch a Kaepernick game, even if I don't watch football, because I'd kind of be curious how it would go.
So you don't have to like him personally.
I don't know him personally. I'm just saying that as a protester, as a patriot, I like it.
Even if you disagree with some of the details.
Let's see. What else we got going on here?
Make sure I didn't miss anything because it's all so terribly important.
No, I think I hit it all.
All right. Triangles are Nazi.
That's all you need to know. That's all I got for now.
People are saying he's not a good quarterback.
I don't know. Who knows?
Export Selection