Episode 1041 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All the Fake News Today
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
NYT FAKE news on Russian bounty for American troops
"Vichy-Republican enablers" death threat
Ivy league schools named after slavers
Elderly protester yells "white power"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And a lot of it has to do with a thing called the simultaneous sip.
And it goes like this.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask that has a little of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dope meat hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Except for the news today, which is kind of stupid, but we'll talk about that.
Join me now for this simultaneous sip.
Go! Well, just when you thought things couldn't get any stupider, they did.
Took a new turn.
All right, here's my favorite story of the day.
We'll start with the funny stuff.
So CNN, as you know, dislikes President Trump.
I don't know. Is anybody aware of that?
Hasn't been covered much.
But yeah, CNN doesn't like President Trump.
And so when they run a story that could be favorable to him in any way whatsoever, watching how they word it is just fascinating.
So here's a story about a team of researchers, doctors, Who are looking at all the existing drugs that might work on coronavirus, and they were doing a real detailed dive.
Apparently this is something they've done before, in which they look at all the existing things and see what might be repurposed.
So I look at this study and I say to myself, huh, this is going to be a story that has to talk about hydroxychloroquine.
How will they speak of it?
So I start at the top, It's like, blah, blah, blah, this other drug, other drug, other drug, other drug, other drug.
Now, if this had been Fox News, they might have mentioned hydroxychloroquine a little bit sooner.
But on CNN, you have to really look for it.
It's like, ah, I've got to read quite a bit to get down to this long article.
And there it was. So I have to read you the exact language.
To see how they make something that might be good sound like something that might be bad.
Are you ready? Alright.
It says, one drug, the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine, has famously received a lot of boosterism from U.S. President Donald Trump.
So the setup is, this is President Trump's drug.
So here's the next thing they say about it.
But, In the published studies available for Feigenbaum's team to review, the drug hasn't outperformed others.
Hasn't outperformed others.
Is that what you say about a drug that doesn't work?
Do you say that it hasn't outperformed others?
And do you know what it says about the others?
Some of them might work.
That's right. So a study in which one of the main findings is that this inexpensive, widely available drug that President Trump likes apparently works.
Apparently works.
According to these researchers.
Not according to me, of course.
I don't know. But the way they have to word it is the drug hasn't outperformed others.
But the whole study shows that some of them probably work.
It, of course, has to be tested further, but there's some indication of it.
And then it goes into this sort of tortured argument about why, well, the two French studies on hydroxychloroquine, they drew red flags for the University of Pennsylvania.
So these are the guys searching it.
It drew red flags.
Did it say that about any of the other drugs?
Did any of the other drugs draw any red flags?
Probably not. Because of the time it takes to clear the body and blah, blah, blah, blah.
So the two studies that were positive are not conclusive, but that would be true of just about all the studies, I would think.
Anyway, so that's how CNN covers good news.
The president is saying that since he imposed this new 10-year term for defacing statues that it hasn't happened.
Is that true?
Have no statues been defaced since the president slapped a higher penalty on that?
And I guess he tweeted 15 different times pictures of people who tried to deface the Andrew Jackson statue.
Do you think a 10-year prison term is going to stop him?
Because the president himself is tweeting the photos of the perpetrators.
He did 15 separate tweets of official wanted posters that show the faces of these people.
How many of them do you think have been caught by now?
Probably a few. Probably a few.
So I would think that some of these people are going to jail for a long time.
Let's see if that cuts down on it.
So the Trump campaign is probably over.
We'll know in about 30 minutes or so whether he's still running.
The story that this comes from is apparently the, not apparently, this happened, I saw it, the president tweeted a video about In which some senior citizens were protesting each other, some pro-Trump, some anti-Trump.
So it's a bunch of old people yelling at each other, but a prominent part of it is one of the old people who supports Trump yelling, white power, white power!
Some old man in a golf cart.
And the president tweeted that.
So somebody says it's a hoax.
It's not a hoax that he tweeted it.
So, of course, this has CNN salivating.
But I don't know.
If that video is still up and the president hasn't said, oops, I didn't see that part, probably his campaign will be over in half an hour or so.
So if you want to know what the slaughter meter says now, zero, zero.
So the slaughter meter is set at zero while that video remains unexplained and still up.
There isn't any chance he can win at this point.
And by the way, don't ask me to explain that one.
We have to listen to the President's explanation if he gives one.
If he doesn't give one, then I would say that would be the end of his chance to get re-elected.
Here's a fun story.
The reports of an explosion in Iran's eastern mountains caused by a cyber attack Huh.
Where would that have come from?
A cyberattack against Iran.
It turned the facility on itself, destroying Iran's Shahab long-range missile force stored in the Qajir tunnel-based complex as well as the solid-fuel production facility.
What? A cyberattack just blew up a whole tunnel complex somehow.
In Iran and destroyed their Shahab long-range missile force?
But it's a little unclear because it says the missile force stored in the tunnel, but that's not necessarily the entire missile force, is it?
Did one cyberattack take out Iran's entire long-range missile capability?
That seems like a lot.
Why would they keep it all in one place?
Maybe they did. I don't know. So, we won't hear any more about that, I don't think, because it was a secret operation by somebody.
Somebody. Who could it be?
We don't know. So, I guess there's some fake news from the New York Times today, an anonymous source, that the president had been briefed that Russia was...
Was offering bounties to Afghanistan people to kill Americans.
And the story is that the President didn't do anything about that.
And of course the President says, fake news, nobody ever briefed any of us on that.
So let's handicap this.
What do you think are the odds that an anonymous source from the New York Times Would have a story that's really bad for the president, that involves Russia, and nobody else in the room was aware of it.
Does that sound familiar in any way?
It is the least credible story of all stories.
If you were to rank stories from most credible to least, Where would you put a New York Times story in the summer before an election with an anonymous source that involves Russia and nobody else in the room heard it?
Where would you put that on your list of credible stories?
At the bottom.
At the bottom.
Right. There's nothing you'll hear today.
There's nothing you'll hear ever.
It would be less credible than something that has all of those qualities.
Nothing. There's literally nothing less credible than that.
But, because it still has the name New York Times on it, and people are sort of stuck in the past, they imagine that that's news of some sort, they still think it's news.
So that'll be out there forever.
So I've told you that it's always a big mistake to check Twitter right before you try to go to sleep.
Have you ever made that mistake?
Because Twitter is designed...
Well, I wouldn't say designed.
I'll say that it evolved to a point where it gets you excited when you look at your tweets, right?
It jacks you up.
So last night...
I'm getting ready to fall asleep.
I'm like, I'll look at Twitter one more time.
Okay, there's a death threat against me in public.
I don't think I'm going to sleep so well tonight.
So that's the last fucking thing I look at before I go to sleep is a death threat against me.
So, now you might say to yourself, Scott, a death threat on Twitter?
I'm pretty sure that's against their policy.
Well, we will find out because I did report it.
And I'm going to tell you what I consider a death threat.
And then I want you to put your opinion on it.
And we're going to look at the Twitter rules that seem to be appropriate because I printed them out.
And then you tell me if this tweet should stay up.
It's a gray area.
It's a gray area.
So here's the tweet.
It's from somebody at headlinezoo.com.
With three O's, I guess.
Headline Zoo. All one word with three O's at the end.
And this is responding to that fake news New York Times story that I just mentioned.
Here's the tweet. It should have been clear from the beginning.
Trump is a traitor.
What's to be said about his hashtag Vichy Republican enablers?
At Real James Woods.
At Scott Adams says...
So here is somebody who has declared that Trump is a traitor because of the fake news New York Times story that didn't happen, and that two people in the world should be called out as being Vichy Republican enablers.
Now, here's how I interpret that.
Yeah, the Vichy, meaning this refers to World War II, Help me with my history here, so I'm just winging it.
It would be the French pseudo-government that was under the German control in World War II, essentially traitors to their own country because they were bowing to Germany instead of joining the resistance, I guess. So, what happened to the Vichy government after Germany was defeated?
This is where I need a little help on my history here.
Did the government officials, known as the Vichy government, were they rounded up and fucking killed?
Just guessing.
When you call somebody a Vichy Republican, are you not saying, by reference, that they are in a category of people That nobody would care and it might even be a good idea to round them up and kill them.
Right? Yeah, they were strung up.
They were all executed. Alright, so is it fair to say that somebody labeling me in a category that is Even you would say might be executed.
Like even you would say, you know, those Vichy traders, if they got executed, well, good for the people because that was probably exactly what needed to be done, right?
So by putting me publicly in a category that not only lumps me with James Woods, who I blocked a long time ago just for being a crazy dick, And if you don't like that, that's okay.
I don't care. He's sort of a crazy dick, and I blocked him a long time ago.
Didn't want to see anything that came out of his tortured head anymore.
All right, so I interpret this as a death threat.
But let's see if the Twitter rules would ban this person.
Now, I... I reported it last night, and as of a few moments ago, it's still live, the account is.
So here are the rules, Twitter rules, and I'm just picking a few rules out of their many rules, but these are the ones I think apply.
Abuse harassment. You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone or incite others to do so.
This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.
Now, would you say that that tweet...
Comparing me to the Vichy Republic, a group of people who were strung up by their own public, justifiably, I would say, justifiably.
They were traitors. Do you think that it is targeted?
First of all, is it targeted because she mentions me by name?
Yes. Is it harassment of someone?
I wouldn't call it harassment exactly, although it is that, of course.
Yeah, it is harassment. Well, I think that's pretty clear.
If somebody compares you to a Vichy government, they are publicly and explicitly wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.
Now, I'm not a mind reader, right?
But I don't know how else you would interpret it.
However, however, if this were the only thing that Twitter said, then you'd say, oh, okay, this is obviously a violation.
But it's not the only thing Twitter says.
Because you have to worry about those times when people use words hyperbolically that everyone knows has no violent intent.
For example, if I said, I'll kill you if you do that again...
Everybody knows you don't mean to kill them.
It's just a choice of words.
So Twitter has some more language that goes into that in a different section.
You have to go look for it, but it's there.
It says, statements that express a wish or hope that someone experiences physical harm.
Okay, that's what we're talking about.
Making vague or indirect threats.
What's vague or indirect?
It's kind of a judgment call.
Or threatening actions that are, and here's the key phrase, Unlikely to cause serious or lasting injury.
Or lasting injury?
Lasting injury? What the hell is lasting injury?
If somebody incites somebody to punch me in the face, but I recover, is that a lasting injury?
How do you define a lasting injury?
That's a tough one. Kind of subjective.
So, if it's unlikely to cause serious or lasting injury...
Are not actionable under this policy, but may be reviewed and actioned under those policies.
So they reserve the right to review them, but they say we're not automatically bound essentially by our own rules if it looks like it's not a real thing.
Not real in the sense that it's unlikely to translate into any kind of action.
Now here's the problem.
Here's the problem.
If you were to look at this one person making one tweet, could you make the argument that this by itself is likely to cause me any harm?
Well, even I would say, that's pretty unlikely.
Pretty unlikely. Alright.
We'll take care of a few people who seem to be suffering.
Let's We'll get rid of that one.
We'll get rid of...
Anybody else? Anybody else?
Alright, so we got rid of a few trolls.
And so, here's my point on this.
If one person refers to you one time on Twitter as being part of a Vichy government, there's no real harm, wouldn't you say?
One person, one time, calls you a traitor.
Eh, nothing. But what happens if it becomes part of the pattern?
Because you know it will.
When Trump loses, because at this point, if that tweet is still up there, he can't possibly win.
When Trump loses, will people actually come after people like me?
Well, if there's more of this, yes.
So how do you treat a tweet that this person probably hopes would become popular?
If it doesn't become popular, it's one tweet, it's one crazy person.
It really doesn't make much difference to me or anybody else.
But how do you judge this?
So I'll give you an update on this.
In my opinion, this is a call to violence, which by itself is weak, but if it were to gain steam, it would actually kill me.
It would actually kill me.
I would actually be dead.
Literally dead. If this thought picked up popularity, because sooner or later somebody would say, hey, they really mean this.
I'll take a crack at them.
Let me say as clearly as I can to anybody who wants to take a crack at me later, it won't go well.
So if anybody decides they want to try to take me out today or any time in the future, my only advice is make sure you get it done, because you don't want to miss Because I may not be as inefficient as you are.
Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England, says they're reconsidering their portrayal of Jesus as a white man.
So Jesus is about to get a redo, get a remake.
Now, the interesting thing about all these stories of the things that have to be renamed and changed and stuff...
Is that some of them are perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
In my opinion, remaking historical Jesus to look like the actual person who, you know, would have looked like, seems reasonable.
You know, I'm not a believer, so I don't have a vote.
I don't care if it gets done.
I don't care if it doesn't get done.
But it's certainly in the reasonable category.
So, I don't mind that one.
But here are some of the fun ones.
Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, they're all named after basically slave owners.
Yeah, basically slave owners.
People who were involved in slavery.
Columbus, Yale, Harvard.
The prince referred to with Princeton was King William.
They all had slaves.
So, I guess the Woodrow Wilson...
There was something within Princeton that was called the Woodrow Wilson something.
They changed that name because Woodrow Wilson was a massive racist.
Sure, he did some good stuff, but he was also a massive racist.
And I'm thinking to myself, I'd like to suggest a compromise.
And the compromise is this.
Instead of changing the names of all these slavers, How about we do this?
We just come up with like a copyright symbol, except instead of copyright, it would be like a little, let's say an S for slavery.
I guess R and C are already taken for registered and copyright.
So you'd have some kind of like a little letter you put after it.
Let's say it's S for slavers.
So it'd be like, Harvard, S. Where'd you go?
I went to Princeton, S. Where'd you get your degree?
Yale? Yes.
I'm just kidding.
They'll never do that. Watching this take place is quite fascinating.
I gotta say, I have mixed opinions about it all.
I have mixed opinions.
And the mixed opinions go like this.
I think that if we were starting from scratch to name all these things, there's no way in hell we would have named everything after slave owners.
You know, if nothing had a name and we were saying, oh, let's just start naming all our buildings and our stuff.
We never did that before, but let's put somebody's name on this stuff.
Let's build a statue.
I don't know that we would do it that way if we started today.
Do we have a right to change history?
Well, here's the thing.
Let me give you a little science here to red pill you on these statues and such.
It goes like this.
If you think that your physical environment is not programming you, you're wrong.
Your physical environment is part of the everyday programming of who you become.
For example, if you live somewhere where you don't have much light, you're programmed to be in a worse mood.
Because light is good for you.
It gives you vitamin D, helps your mood, helps your health.
So simply having a house that doesn't have windows in the right place will actually program you to be sad and unhappy and less successful and less healthy.
I mean, it's that simple. You got light, you're a little bit healthier and happier.
You got no light, you're not.
But this extends also to things like color and design.
Do you feel claustrophobic?
Do you feel creative? If you're a person who needs order, are you in a messy environment?
Because imagine being somebody who really needs something, you know, I don't know if it would be OCD, but whatever it is that you need things just where they belong, but unfortunately you don't have a choice.
You live in a house where everything's just a mess.
What would that do to your brain?
Imagine what that does to your brain.
Think about it. It programs you.
Now, generalize from this.
We know that everything in your environment...
Can program you, and pretty immediately, and pretty grossly.
Now let me make up an example that isn't real.
Let's say you're afraid of dogs.
We'll just take that as a given.
Most of you are not afraid of dogs.
But let's say you were attacked by a dog when you were a kid, and you were afraid of dogs.
Is that reasonable? Is it reasonable for a person to be afraid of dogs if they were attacked by dogs?
You would say, well, it might be irrational, but it's quite reasonable that they would be.
If you were attacked by something, you'd have a little PTSD about it, wouldn't you?
I mean, it just makes sense. People who go through a war will have some PTSD. So now imagine you had some PTSD about dogs, but you had to live in the dog museum.
It's like there are pictures of dogs on the wall, there's a statue of a dog, there's a, you know...
There's audio playing of dogs barking.
You're living in a dog museum, but you're afraid of dogs.
And you have a good reason to be afraid of dogs, because one attacked you once.
What does that do to you?
How do you like that?
Do you like living there?
The answer is no.
No, that would program you very negatively.
You wouldn't be able to perform in life.
You couldn't be as happy.
You'd just never be happy. So, the point is, That the decorations, literally the decorations, the choice of color, the choice of a painting on a wall, the way the room is organized, will program you in real time.
It will program you in real time.
Now those of you who are saying, if I had to estimate, I'd say at least 80% of you listening to this are saying some form of this.
Oh my God, Scott.
We all have messy rooms.
We all have to go through life.
There's no way this is as powerful as you're making it out to be.
We all have to ride the bus sometimes.
And the bus is not pretty.
I get it, Scott.
We'd all like to live in a nice place like you do.
But that's life.
It's a messy life.
We're all affected the same way.
Don't make a big thing about it.
It's nothing. And I think you're completely wrong.
I think that the power of your physical environment is way stronger than you think it is.
Now, of course, the analogy that I made to the dog, analogies are not persuasive, so don't look to the analogy for the persuasion.
That was just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
Here's the persuasion. If I told you you had to live in a space...
That was very, very unkind to you personally, but it wouldn't bother me.
Am I a good person?
Am I a good person?
If I say, hey, you're a guest in my house, I've got three bedrooms, they're all available for you to use, but I want you to use the one that has the dog pictures.
Use the one with the dog pictures.
Yeah, I know you're afraid of dogs, and you'll be traumatized, you'll have PTSD, and you won't be able to sleep, but it doesn't bother me.
I'm not afraid of dogs.
So if I'm not afraid of dogs, I don't care if you sleep in the dog bedroom, even though there are two other bedrooms that don't have dog pictures in them.
Why do I care? Because I'm not afraid of dogs.
That's sort of what I'm seeing.
The reason that I'm anti-statue but I'm not in favor of taking them down in some non-legal riot way, everything has to go through the process because that's how we're organized, that's how society works.
So I think everything has to go through a legal process, but I think the complaint overall It's quite real.
Now, has anybody ever been traumatized by the names of Yale, Harvard, Princeton, or Columbia?
No. No.
Nobody has ever been traumatized because Harvard is named after a slaver.
It just hasn't happened. I don't think anybody knew until this year.
I didn't know. Or at least the public didn't know.
I didn't know. So, certainly things have gone too far.
But if you ask me would I want to live in a world where there was a statue to slave owners, if I had some generational PTSD about that, I'd say, no, I'd like to get rid of those statues.
But if you told me to change the name of these colleges, I'd say that's too far, but it's not up to me.
So we'll see if the liberal institutions can live with their own rules.
Do you remember YouTuber Jenna Marbles?
Very, very popular.
A blonde woman who did funny YouTubes.
She was gigantic.
She cancelled herself for her own bad behavior in the past because she did blackface and made tasteless jokes.
Shane Dawson, who was another gigantic YouTuber.
And by the way, if you have never heard these names, people like Shane Dawson and Jenna Marbles would be like...
Like the cast of Friends, basically, on television.
That's how popular they are on YouTube.
They're gigantic names on YouTube.
But if you're not in that world, you haven't heard of them, probably.
Gigantic names. One just basically apologized for his entire past.
But I can't believe that he'd been...
Apparently he did blackface a number of times in the YouTube...
You know, era.
And he didn't get cancelled for doing blackface a number of times already?
How many times?
And Jenna Marbles too?
How many times can you do blackface and not get cancelled?
Is it only this year?
This is the first year people are getting cancelled for this stuff?
What's going on with that?
Alright. So, it's mostly fake news and coronavirus and...
And that video.
PTSD isn't always about being afraid.
That is correct. Somebody says, stop apologizing.
Alright, I'm going to block you.
Whoever said stop apologizing in capital letters, I'm going to block you now.
And here's the thing.
Did you hear me apologize? Did anybody hear anything that sounded like an apology?
Nope. I did not.
Now, I don't know if that's directed at me or not, but I'm sure somebody will tell me.
I don't like it when people shout in capitals on my comments.
Why is Trump losing now?
Well, there's a video in which the president retweeted of a guy yelling white power.
Now, if that's still up...
The thing is, the only defense against that is he didn't really look at it.
He didn't really watch the video before he tweeted.
Is there anybody who's ever tweeted a video they haven't actually watched maybe five times a day?
That's right. Yeah, people tweet things that they have not read and videos they have not watched.
I do it literally every day.
Probably there hasn't been a single day of tweeting I'm just guessing.
In four years, in which I haven't tweeted something I haven't read, or I haven't read it, or somebody says it's down, and most of you are saying it's still up.
Yeah. Now, you know, if it's still up, and I will hear some real good excuse, I mean, I'm out, obviously.
So I don't think any of you should support him if he keeps that up.
Somebody says, you've taught us not to trust videos.
Exactly. That's why you should wait to hear what they say.
I mean, you should reserve your judgment until you hear the full story.
But the only explanation I can imagine, the only one I can imagine, is that he didn't watch it before he tweeted it, and nobody did.
But it's been up there for a while, hasn't it?
So it could be that they don't know how to take it down, meaning they don't want to just take it down because then it might look like they meant it, but they got scared off it, so maybe they're thinking of some.
Don't agree he's losing.
Somebody said they weighed in on this and was restricted for 59 seconds.
The racist video is still up.
You know, it's going to be an interesting case if he decides to defend it.
I don't think that's going to happen, but who knows?
Whatever. And here's the question.
You know, I've been telling you that because the conversation about race and the police in particular has gotten deeper, there are things that you can say, there are things you can say that you just couldn't say before.
So you actually can say things you weren't saying.
So if somebody says the old guy is joking or sarcastic, it doesn't really matter, does it?
I don't think that would matter in any way.
Because there are some things that you shouldn't be joking about.
and so here's the thing If the old man had yelled, you know, Heil Hitler, of course, that would be the worst.
If he'd yelled white supremacy, terrible.
White nationalism, terrible.
But what if he just yelled white power?
There might be an interesting free speech case here, and I would be fascinated if the president decided to back it.
Now, I think it would be the end of his presidency, but he might anyway.
And that would be this.
Is there any reason that that guy can't yell white power?
If there are other people yelling black power and other slogans, isn't that just his opinion?
Because it's not racist to say that your own group is good, is it?
To just say that you want your group to have power?
It's kind of interesting. We'll see if anybody supports it.
I don't think you can go there to support it, but I'd love to see what other people do about it.
Now, do I personally think that an old man has the right to yell that phrase?
Of course. Of course.
An old man can yell anything he wants.
It wasn't an insult to anybody.
He was just asserting something about white people, and I think you're allowed to assert things Somebody says, it's just not great judgment.
You know, when you reach a certain age, I don't know if you care, do you?
Because the old man is probably just having a great time today.
He's probably looking at the news and saying, look what I did.
Everybody, hey, you see this?
The president's talking about me.
Everybody's talking about me. Somebody says, what if he said black power?
Yeah, so the point is, if it had been completely legal to say black power, will this guy be banned forever?
For saying white power. Now the difference, of course, is that there's a presumed difference in power.
If you're the one who doesn't have power, or society looks at it that way, then saying, hey, Elbonian power, nobody cares if you're a low power or presumed to be not having enough power.
But if you're the one who has power, then it just looks like a dictator, doesn't it?
So context does matter.
Old lady yelling Nazi.
Is that okay?
Oh, good point.
Yeah, so the old lady who was yelling at the guy and calling him a Nazi, yes, she should be condemned equally, I would say.
But when she was a white woman yelling at a white man, I don't know, it gets complicated.
It gets complicated.
He was being called a racist for supporting Trump, and maybe he responded by yelling white power just to bother her?
Maybe. But, you know, it doesn't matter what his intentions were, does it?
I don't think it matters.
Trump would be up 10 if he would just put down his phone, somebody says.
Yeah, he just ruined Trump's election, but he's having a great day.
Scarborough thinks Trump is trying to lose.
You know, I've heard a few people say that.
Didn't Mike Sernovich ask the question, if Trump were trying to lose, how would it look different?
Right? How would it look different if he were trying to lose?
And, you know, of course, that's sort of a trick question, because...
You know, you could say the same thing about Biden.
It looks like Biden's trying to lose.
You could probably say it about anybody.
All right. Somebody says, oh my God, the sky is falling today.
Who knows? You know, there probably will be 25 surprises between now and Election Day.
So, you know, we might not even be talking about this by tomorrow.
We'll see. But it would be really interesting if Trump decided to say, hey, that guy can yell that.
If the woman can call him a Nazi, he can yell anything he wants back.
Maybe. If the president is keeping it up there, let me say this.
If the president says, yeah, I can see why that would be offensive, but freedom of speech...
Then I would actually back him for it.
I think I could actually get behind that.
As long as he said, yeah, I don't buy the statement, but freedom of speech.
I doubt I could publicly support that too much, but privately I'd be saying to myself, that's a good point.
I don't have to back anybody, but I can back their ability to say obnoxious things in public.
Other people say he's acting like he wants to lose.
Why would he want to lose?
It would be quite a change from anything we've seen from him.
But the only reason I can imagine he would want to lose is if he has some health issues we don't know about.
If I were that age and I had some health issues, I'd say, you know, maybe you would be just as well if I went out after one term.
But we have no indication of anything like that.
Unless I heard a reason.
And it would have to be a health reason, I think.
Anything short of a health reason, I'm not sure I would believe.
Somebody in the comments says, I just awoke from a coma for the past six months.
What have I missed? That's pretty funny.
Alright. Somebody says, I'm white and I don't feel very powerful.
Well, better crank up your white privilege then.
What are you missing? That is the speech on the street.
Alright, somebody says, I doubt Trump is making a play here.
