Episode 1066 Scott Adams: I Travel to the Future and Back to Tell You Who Will Win in November
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Kanye still the most interesting person on the planet
Audio illusion, "engage" or "lying b****"
Tucker versus the NYT
Upper case Black, lower case white?
"White supremacist" is the n-word slur against white people
The Portland illusion, do their residents care?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Best part of your day.
Yes, it is.
And in a moment, I'll be traveling to the future.
I haven't tried this before.
It's a little bit dangerous.
But I'll be moving to 2021, and then I'll quickly come back to the present and tell you what I saw.
If I don't make it, well, I guess I'll see you at my funeral in 2021.
But, but, before that, what happens before that?
I think you know. I think you know.
It's a simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a sign, 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 dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Ah! I don't know if you can feel it yet, but there's a temporal shift being formed.
If you don't mind, I'm going to do it now.
I'm going to go to the future.
This won't be easy.
So the technology is not completely tried.
And so...
We'll see what we can do.
I'll put on the safety glasses because I don't know what's going to happen, honestly.
This hasn't been tested.
So I'm only going to do one year, because who knows what happens if I do more than one year.
But I'm going to try to do one year.
And if I never see you again, I'll miss you.
And, well, I just don't know what to say.
I love all of you.
I'm going to try to go to the future now and get you some intelligence about what's happening.
But hold on.
Hitting the switch.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Whoa!
Whoa!
That was intense.
You won't believe what I saw.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Now, before we get going, I know what some of you are thinking.
You're thinking, I don't think he went to the future.
Is that what you think?
Are some of you thinking, I don't think that was real.
I don't think you went to the future.
Well, I anticipated that.
So obviously I brought something with me from the future.
You don't have one of these, do you?
Let's see if you can find one of these in your store.
No. That's 2021, bitch.
Right there. Yeah, this came from the future.
And that's how you know I was in the future.
So, here's what we found out.
Portland didn't work out.
We had high hopes for Portland, but it didn't go exactly in the way you'd hoped.
Because I know the optimists were thinking, well, maybe it calms down a little bit.
The protests stop. Pretty soon it'll be a gleaming city in the northwest.
It's something we can all be proud of.
But it didn't go that way.
I'm sorry to tell you.
Portland actually was renamed.
The value of the property actually declined so much that it was purchased by, and I hate to say this, but have you ever heard of the Port-A-Potty Company?
They make Port-A-Potties.
They purchased Portland.
And renamed it. So now it's Port-a-Body Land.
So it's just a giant outdoor bathroom for Antifa.
So that's not as good as you'd hoped.
I know what you're asking.
You're wondering who's the president, right?
For those of you just joining, I just did come back from the future, 2021, where I brought this calendar back so you would know I really was there.
And you're probably wondering who's president, right?
That's what you're wondering?
All right. Well, that didn't go as well as we hoped either.
I know a lot of you thought, oh, I hope President Trump gets reelected.
Didn't go that way.
Sorry. Was it Kanye?
No. Was it Joe Biden?
Sort of. Sort of.
You know, by Election Day, he had continued to decline, so he was no longer allowed to use pencils or anything that had a sharp point on it.
But that didn't matter because he had a strong vice president.
And to everybody's surprise, a lot of people thought he would pick Kamala Harris.
You thought that too. I had even predicted that.
I had predicted he was going to pick Kamala Harris as his vice president choice.
It didn't go that way.
It turns out he just went with the deep fake Kamala Harris.
So there is a real Kamala Harris, but she had some cosmetic surgery.
It didn't work out.
So in the end, the Democratic Party decided to just go with the deep fake.
So the country is being led by essentially a digital reproduction of Kamala Harris, what she used to look like.
And I think it's powered by AI, but I'm not sure, because a lot of our regular politicians couldn't pass the Turing test either.
So, I don't know.
It's comparable. But let's get to the other news.
As I remember it, back from 2020, there were some other things going on.
There was a big earthquake in Alaska.
I don't know if you heard about it in your local time.
But there may or may not be a giant tsunami coming toward Alaska, which is maybe the scariest thing I've ever heard in my life, if you've seen the line of cars that are trying to get out of there.
So we'll be watching that with great anticipation.
But run!
That is my advice for the citizens who are on the coast of Alaska.
Run! And one more reason for me not to move to Alaska.
I didn't need a lot more reasons, but that sort of solved it for me.
Did you see that Kanye continues to be the most interesting person on the planet?
You can't take that away from him, can you?
Does Kanye even have the ability to be uninteresting?
He can't do it.
He has that in common with President Trump, and I think on some level they recognize that in each other.
A complete inability To be uninteresting.
He just can't do it.
He doesn't know how to be uninteresting.
So I guess he was tweeting about his divorce and implicating his wife for having potentially an affair with Meek Mills, but maybe not.
Maybe that's not what he meant.
We don't know. But there's something interesting going on there.
Even Chappelle went to Wyoming and hung out with Kanye for a while.
And I thought, I don't know how any of this could get more interesting.
It just couldn't be.
You've got everything.
If you had to say to yourself, all right, Scott, try to put together the most interesting story that you can.
And you can pick from any domains.
You can just put them together, just mash them up.
What's the most interesting story?
I'd be like, well, I don't know.
Presidential election.
That's got to be in there.
Okay. How about something with a famous artist, Kanye?
We'd love to throw the Kardashians in there.
Okay, throw the Kardashians in there.
Can we make it salacious?
Can it be something with maybe an indication of possibly some sexual something?
Okay, throw that in there.
Can we have a feud?
Maybe a rapper feud?
Really famous ones. Okay, we got that.
Can we have a new album come out?
Can we throw some religion in there?
Can we have children and abortion?
Can we bring it all in there?
Can we get racism?
Let's put it all in there.
And Kanye managed to put it all in there at the same time that he's announcing a new album.
And I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that that album will sell quite well.
I think it'll sell quite well.
I do not think that you need to worry about Kanye siphoning off a lot of votes in November.
It doesn't look like it's heading in that direction.
And he even teased that maybe 2024 was a better time for him to run.
We'll see. We'll see.
I've been telling you for a while that no matter what happens in 2020, it's kind of genius.
For him to put his name out there, so he's always in the conversation, and will be for the next four years, no matter what happens in November.
I feel as though, I've been watching the news and watching social media, and I feel as though the country needs a new cabinet position.
It should be a cabinet position that only has one function.
When there's a big news story, political story, That cabinet will decide which side is more like Hitler.
Because if you've noticed, pretty much all of our political conversations end up with, well, you're Hitler.
Well, no, I think you're Hitler.
No, you're Hitler.
No, no, you're Hitler.
And sometimes there'll be a clever comeback to that, and it goes like this, no, no, you're Hitler.
And sometimes there'll even be another clever comeback after that that goes like this.
No, no. You're Hitler.
So we need some kind of a cabinet-level position just to sort out who's Hitler.
Because I can't tell.
You know, I'm looking at Portland, for example, and I'm seeing Antifa, and they look like Hitler to me.
But they think that the federal officers...
We're doing some law enforcement up there.
They think they look like Hitler.
How am I supposed to know who's Hitler?
Somebody needs to solve this for me.
Tell me who's Hitler so I know who to hate.
Here's some potentially good news.
There are two big technical developments in face masks.
I don't know if it's good that we're talking about technical developments in face masks.
I suppose that's, you know, sort of like saying the airliner went down, but, you know, somebody's pet survived.
So it's sort of, you know, it's too bad we're talking about face masks at all.
But a Quebec company called I3 Biomedical, I think, said they have some kind of a coating they can put on a face mask that deactivates 99% of the virus.
So that's pretty cool.
Who knows how quickly that could be ramped up or if it's as good as they say.
But at least people are actively looking into how do you make your face masks really, really good.
At the same time, MIT has a prototype.
of a silicone mask, sort of a permanent mask that you could easily disinfect.
And apparently that's going to be a whole level above other face masks, both in how much it covers and how well it filters.
So those are two developments just today that, you know, who knows if those specific things will ever reach market, but it does show you that people are doing a lot of stuff in that space, which is good.
Did you all get a chance to listen to that Yanni and Laurel situation?
You know what I'm talking about?
When things sound...
You can listen to a tape and one person will hear one word clearly, but another person will listen to the same thing and hear a completely different thing, but clearly.
And we've seen this audio illusion a number of times, most famously with Yanni and Laurel.
But yesterday there was just a great one where, I think it was yesterday, When Kayleigh McEnany was doing her press conference and one of the reporters either said, this is what the reporter claimed, you won't engage.
Oh, you won't engage.
But if you listen to it on the tape and you've been primed to hear it this other way, it sounds exactly like you're a lying bitch.
Now, those two don't even sound the same, do they?
You won't engage, and you're a lying B-word.
Those don't even sound similar.
But if you've listened to it, you can hear them both.
You can hear them both.
Can you believe it?
So you have to experience it to know that that's even a thing.
And when I heard it, I could hear both.
But once I heard the lying bee part, I could hear that more often.
But I'm sure that the actual sentence was, you won't engage.
And I think it was.
But having experienced that, having experienced hearing the same words clearly two different ways, what do you think about Roger Stone and what he is alleged to have said On the phone to somebody when he was talking to the disc jockey who believed he had used the word degro.
Now, if I understand the rules, can somebody help me with this?
I believe the rules are this.
There's no situation in which I could use the N-word, you know, the real N-word, There's no situation in which I could use that full word even if I were talking about someone else using it.
I think we all agree with that.
There's no situation in which I can personally Use that word, and I agree with that, because it's such an ugly word.
I don't have any problem with that.
I do think that's a word that needs to be treated special, right?
That, okay, we all agree that one's just way over the line.
Let's take it out of our vocabulary.
But my understanding is that if I were to use the word negro referring to somebody, that would be, you know, racist and inappropriate.
But I can talk about the word If somebody else used it.
I think that's still okay, right?
Right? It was still okay?
Don't get canceled for that?
You gotta look for all the traps.
You gotta know where all the trap doors are.
So, you know, I listened to Roger Stone say what sounded exactly like the word negro, but after you hear The Kayleigh McEnany situation where you could hear two completely different sentences based on whichever one you'd been primed to hear.
Is it possible that Roger Stone didn't say the thing you can clearly hear?
Clearly. I mean, there's no doubt when you listen to it.
Okay, I heard that very clearly.
But I also heard lying bitch.
Completely clearly.
And it didn't happen. It didn't happen.
It was not part of reality, but I experienced it just like it was right in front of me.
So, could Roger Stone actually be telling the truth this one time?
I don't think so.
You know, if I had to bet on it.
If you said, Scott, you're going to put your own money on this.
And you have to bet.
Was the word you heard completely clearly on the Roger Stone thing exactly what you heard?
Or is it one of these Yanni Laurel situations?
Well, I would still bet that he used the actual word.
I'm just introducing the thought that when you see a story like that, like the Roger Stone story, and it's based on your hearing it with your own ears, how much weight should you put on that?
If you heard it clearly with your own ears, how much certainty should you have?
Well, it's no longer 100%.
It used to be.
It used to be you'd be pretty much 100% sure.
With the Roger Stone thing, I would say, well, okay, I'm 90% sure.
But you can't really ever be 100% sure, can you?
We're just not in that world anymore.
Alright, so let's use an update on Tucker and the New York Times.
So, Tucker had claimed that the New York Times was preparing an article about him in which his new home location would be revealed.
Now, there was not an allegation that the New York Times would give his street address, but rather the allegation was that they would describe it with enough clarity That internet sleuths could figure out where he lived.
You know, they could narrow it down, which would end up being about the same thing.
So Tucker complained about this publicly.
Much of the public was on his side, saying this is way over the line, if that's what's going to happen.
And the New York Times came out and said, no, we told him we were never going to reveal where he lived.
But of course, that was probably a lie, wasn't it?
Probably they were going to give enough hints in a lifestyle story.
That's what they said. It's going to be a lifestyle story.
Oh no, it's not even going to be negative.
It's more about your lifestyle.
And of course, if we're talking about your lifestyle, well, you've got to describe the situation in which you live.
It's perfectly reasonable because you know the New York Times likes to do lifestyle stories about their conservative nemesis Nemeses?
Nemeses, I guess.
So the New York Times has zero credibility on their claim that they weren't planning to do anything of the sort because it looks like they were planning to do exactly that.
But maybe Tucker scared them off and we won't see that.
So we'll wait for details on that.
Now I'm wondering if there will even be an article.
Because if they're smart, they'll kill the whole article.
You don't want anybody looking at that article and saying, oh, I think I can figure out where he lives from this.
Because, as I said before, I'm not going to try to tell you what might happen to the New York Times, but it would not be a free punch, if you know what I mean.
The blowback to the New York Times, I think, would be something they've never seen before.
And they've had a lot of blowback and a lot of things, I would think, over the years.
But if they actually targeted Tucker's family, the level of blowback I don't think would be precedented.
I think that would be just such a nuclear option that I don't know if the New York Times would actually survive as a company if they did that.
But we will see.
So the United States has mysteriously, but maybe not mysteriously, abruptly ordered a Chinese consulate to close in, where was it?
Houston? Somewhere in Texas.
Anyway, so they closed it, and the vague accusation is that they were spying and collecting information and stealing intellectual property, all the things we know that they do.
And China has complained.
Now, the importance of this story is direction.
The importance of the story is direction.
It's not where things are with China, but where they're heading.
And it looks to me like decoupling is unstoppable at this point.
And we may even stop...
I don't know, it's possible that we'll end political conversation.
You know, any kind of diplomatic situation with China.
It could go that far. So Trump did his press conference that he hasn't done in a while on the coronavirus situation, and it was hilarious to see how his critics treated him doing everything that they wanted him to do.
So what they wanted the president to do was to say it's bad, And it looks like it might get worse.
So he said it. He said it exactly in those terms.
And they wanted him to be pro-face mask, and he was.
So he unambiguously said, use face masks if you can't socially distance.
And then he didn't speculate too much on medical stuff, which is where he gets in trouble.
So on some level, you'd have to say, it was kind of perfect.
It was kind of perfect. The public, and mostly his critics, but also I think a lot of Republicans, were saying the same thing.
That, hey, you need to fix your messaging on masks.
You need to fix your messaging on the seriousness of the situation because you're being accused of not taking it seriously.
You have to be more leaderly, so we need to see your face talking about it.
So he did everything that he was asked of him.
He was literally, meaning he showed up in front of the public, said what he was going to do, etc.
And how was he treated by his critics?
Did they say, thank goodness, this is exactly what we wanted.
We're on track now.
No, they said it took too long.
It should have been done sooner, which is the generic standard complaint about everything.
There's nothing you can do that's right.
They couldn't have been done sooner.
So they always have that to go to.
But now the big complaint that's on CNN, because they've run out of their basic complaints, so now they have to get a little more creative about what the complaint is, because it's easy to criticize him for not wearing a mask.
Like, it's simple.
You've got a photograph.
The public thinks about it.
They're wearing masks. I mean, that's an easy one.
He doesn't like masks.
Or he won't wear a mask.
But if he starts getting that right...
And it appears that he's getting a handle on that.
They have to go to more exotic criticisms.
And here's the one that Stephen Collins is using on CNN. And I always read his article for The Laughs.
It's freaking hilarious how he can turn something into nothing, or nothing into something, I mean, by just talking about the president with bad words.
He's really sort of a genius at turning it into a negative.
Anyway, so he's retreated to the following complaint about the president, and I don't even understand it.
And it goes like this, that the president is not being leaderly enough in pushing for better testing, and especially contact tracing.
Because those are the things that other countries did to get past the coronavirus or get on top of it.
Here's my question to you.
I don't really understand that.
Do you? Because if our tests can't give us a result for six days or whatever, and they're terribly inaccurate...
And they're not widely available on demand just because you want one.
I don't think we're capable of doing any of this stuff.
And would it matter if the president said, try harder?
Is there somewhere in the country that somebody should be trying harder to invent a test that works quickly or to do something?
I'd like to hear a little bit more from the experts on this question of whether that's even a thing.
My personal bias is that you can't test your way out of it in a big country like this.
If you were an island, I think maybe you could.
So if you were an island and you had a small problem, I think maybe you could.
You could test and contact, trace your way out of it.
And even if the tests weren't perfect, etc., Maybe that would be a big part of the solution.
But if you have the United States with thousands and thousands of new cases, unfortunately, where we are, I just don't know that contact tracing is even a thing, because I think it's just too big.
Am I wrong about that?
So I'm looking for some fact-checking, and if anybody has a link to send me later on Twitter, To tell me if that's real, because I just don't know if that criticism is hitting the right scientific and practical notes.
I mean, it would be great if you could do it.
If you were magic and you could just do it, that'd be great.
I just don't know if we have the capability to make testing and contact tracing actually work.
I'm skeptical about that.
But I could be convinced.
The Associated Press has announced, and I guess they're announcing it again, that they will, going forward, they will capitalize the word black when talking about black citizens in this country, I think, in particular.
But they've decided that the word white will not receive the same treatment.
So if you're white, you'll be a lowercase w.
If you're black, you could be a capital B. I'd like to be among the first.
I know I'm not the first to say this is blatantly racist because it's blatantly racist.
But I'm going to extend that a little bit to this.
The phrase white supremacist is just the N-word for white people.
And anybody who calls a white person a white supremacist, unless that person is labeling themselves, I suppose if you were in a group that called yourself a white supremacist and somebody said you were one, that would be fair.
Because you would be self-labeling in that case, although I've never met anybody who did that.
But if you're calling just ordinary people on Twitter, or ordinary politicians, or just ordinary white people white supremacists, I would say that is blatantly and completely racist.
It is a way to minimize white people.
It is a way to lump them all together in the most grotesquely racist way.
So my personal approach going forward is that if anybody uses the word white supremacist in the N-word kind of a sense as just an insult to a white person, then I will treat them as a racist.
And I also think that anybody who has used the insult white supremacist against a specific person And I'll give you some exceptions in a minute.
But anybody who's made a tweet calling somebody a white supremacist, I think they should lose their job.
Because if you did a tweet using the N-word, you'd lose your job.
And you know, I'm okay with that.
If somebody does a social media tweet and they use the N-word, if your employer sees that, they should fire you.
They should fire you. Because you don't want to hire anybody who's using that kind of language, even if they're doing it on their own time.
I'd be perfectly okay with firing somebody for using the N-word in public.
Absolutely. No hesitation.
But I think we should apply the same rule to anybody who's used the word white supremacist against a specific person.
Now, here's going to be my exception.
White supremacy. White supremacy or white supremacist system is still okay.
Still okay.
Because that's not racist.
If somebody says, our system, the way it's organized, is organized in a way that the white people, mostly who are the elites, it keeps them where they are, I would say, okay.
I wouldn't use those words to describe it, but if somebody wants to say, That the system that keeps mostly white people in power is, by definition, a system of white supremacy, I would say, eh, I can see that, just as an objective description of the situation.
Now, that's different from how do you change it, what do you do about it, is it really a problem, or is it just the way things turned out?
Those are all different conversations.
But as a description of the system, I'd say, yeah, That feels objective, true.
What do you do about it is a different conversation, like I said.
But if you're calling a person a white supremacist, then that's just the end word for white people, and I think it should be treated the same.
That is my opinion.
Because, as Charles Barclay quite wisely said, you can't end racism with racism.
Right? You can't end racism with racism.
Hate and more racism.
Does it work? We either play by the same rules or we don't.
Now, I've got a question about Portland that I don't understand.
And I think this has to do with the fact that people are not like me.
You know, sometimes you assume that, in fact, I was thinking about writing a book in which the book would be the biggest illusions of life.
So I would just put together the things that hold people back the most, you know, the biggest illusions.
And, you know, one of the things on the list would be, be yourself.
That's like the worst advice, but I've read about that before.
And I just forgot what my point was being.
Oh, Portland. So the biggest illusion in life, I think, is that people think the way you do.
There's probably no single illusion about your reality That is more universal and more damaging.
The imagination that other people think the way you do.
They just don't. People are all over the board.
As soon as you say they think the way you do, then you become that mind reader.
Then you say, ah, I know what you're thinking.
Because if I were in that situation, that's what I'd be thinking.
That never works. People are just too different.
I always say it never works.
You could get lucky. But here's why I don't understand Portland.
And it's because if I were, let's say, let's say I were a retail business owner in downtown Portland, where I lived in Portland, and my life had been largely destroyed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, while the mayor just watched, what would you do?
If you were not with Antifa, and you were, let's say, sympathetic to Black Lives Matter, but not to the protests, And you watched your mayor allow your entire life to be destroyed and do nothing.
What would you do as just a regular citizen?
See, this is where I go wrong because I know what I would do.
I'm not recommending this, okay?
Let me say this up front.
I don't recommend this.
This is a very bad idea what I'm going to say next.
You should not do this.
I'm just telling you what I would do.
Every single night, I would get my friends together, we would dress all in black, we would pretend to be Antifa, and we would put graffiti on the mayor's house every night.
Until there was nothing left of the mayor's house but graffiti.
Now, would you get arrested for that?
Apparently not. Apparently not.
Nobody gets arrested for graffiti, right?
In fact, there were some Antifa who marched on the mayor of Oakland, I think last night, and they graffitied the mayor of Oakland's house.
Did any of them get arrested?
No. No.
Nobody got arrested. And if they did, you know, suppose it was New York, for example, if they did get arrested, they would just be released.
No bail. That's it.
So the thing I don't understand about Portland is the regular citizens, are they in favor of the protesters?
Because they act like they are.
They act like they're in favor of the protesters.
If this were my retail business that got destroyed by the mayor, I would be in the mayor's driveway every night, dressed in black, with a mask, pretending to be Antifa, and I would just tag her house every day.
I'd be back there every night, and she would be very frightened.
She would be very frightened.
But I wouldn't do anything dangerous, because I'm not violent.
But I would make sure that her house represented something very much like the business that had just been destroyed.
I would make sure that the protesters had an impact on the mayor that was equivalent to what was happening to the businesses downtown.
So that's the part I don't understand, is why are the regular citizens of Portland not doing the most obvious things that you would do?
That's just the most obvious thing.
It doesn't take me to figure that out, right?
So this is giving me pause about whether Trump and the federal agents, let's say the Department of Homeland Security, whether they should get involved or not.
Because it doesn't seem to me that the regular citizens of Portland care.
They don't seem to care.
Because caring looks different.
They would be having their own protests.
They would be organized.
You'd see them on TV. It would look very different, wouldn't it?
As far as I can tell, the citizens of Portland just don't even care.
So why should I care?
Why should I ask a federal agent to go into harm's way To fix something that nobody's asking to be fixed.
The mayor's not asking for it.
The citizens of Portland apparently are not asking for it.
And Antifa's not asking for it.
So I just consider that confusing.
I don't know what the deal is there.
Here's my prediction.
I think this is safe.
The polls will narrow before November.
Is that a safe prediction?
That the difference between Biden and Trump is going to start shrinking, and by November it's going to be maybe no difference.
It's going to be very close to even by November.
I think that's a fair, at least in some polls.
It won't be every poll. But I think some polls are going to have them dead even by November, and other polls will have narrowed.
So they all will narrow. Now why will they narrow?
What do you think would be the reason for that?
Well, some of the polls, I believe, are illegitimate, meaning they're not trying to be accurate, and they're trying to show Biden ahead.
I think they have to, let's say, modify their approach so that when it gets to election day, they can say, well, by election day, we were pretty accurate.
We just barely missed it.
So they have to, in order to cover up their malfeasance, They have to get closer by Election Day.
I think that's what happened last year, actually.
Or that's what happened in the last election, actually.
Now, some of the pollsters, such as Rasmussen, will get there sooner because I think they're actually doing real polling.
So they'll probably be there sooner.
Because I think the public is going to have this conversation with themselves.
It looks like this.
By November...
Here are the things that you could reasonably safely predict based on current trends.
Now, there'll be still way more surprises, right?
So probably the election will be determined by whatever surprises happen between now and then.
So the straight-line prediction is always dangerous.
But if you straight-lined it, if you did...
I think that vaccines will be either already rolling out or almost rolling out.
So that our optimism about this will be higher than it had ever been, because science will eventually have some solutions by November.
So COVID is going to look less scary, because it looks like we'll be on the verge of having some vaccines.
Even if they don't work, it's going to look like a solution is coming.
And then the other trend that I think we can predict is that Biden will continue to decline.
He will have more gaffes.
He will avoid more press conferences.
He will have begged out of any kind of a debate.
Now, what's interesting is that even the supporters of Biden have finally come to accept that he's not all there.
Have you seen that?
I feel like there's some kind of capitulation on the left in which they used to be saying, no, Biden's fine.
There's nothing wrong with Biden.
That was just a few months ago.
Now how do they talk?
How do Biden supporters talk about their own candidate?
Now they say things like, well, you know, the vice presidential choice will be especially important this time.
Right? And they say things like, Well, maybe he's lost a step, right?
He's not as nimble as he used to be.
So even the left has now at least fully embraced there's something happening here with Biden.
But because the election is still relatively far away in our minds, not in our calendars, but in our minds it's still a little bit far away, the Democrats still have the option...
Of thinking Trump or no Trump.
So the frame that most of the people have is not Biden versus Trump, although that's growing in importance.
It's still sort of Trump or no Trump.
And Biden is just the stand-in for no Trump.
People are not really saying, give me Biden.
It's still Trump or no Trump.
In November, it's going to be Biden or Trump.
Because, you know, your mind will just continue to get focused and more focused and more focused.
And on Election Day, it will just be Biden versus Trump.
And Biden won't even be all there.
So I think there will be a number of people who say, you know, if we had any kind of a coherent candidate, I would vote for that Democrat.
But we didn't get that.
We just didn't.
So maybe I'll take a chance on the other guy.
So one of the things you're going to see is a lot of anecdotes.
You're seeing them already. There was that person who was a never-Trumper who decided to vote for Trump.
There was that Democrat who'd been voting Democrat for 20 elections in a row, but this time my neighbor says he's voting for Trump.
But you know the same anecdotes are happening in the other direction, right?
The left is telling all their anecdotes, yes, there are all these people, they voted Trump, but now they realize it was a big mistake and they're voting for Biden this time.
So you should ignore all of those.
All of those anecdotes have no useful purpose.
First of all, most of them will be untrue.
And second of all, it's happening in both directions, but nobody can count it.
Nobody's actually got any kind of an accurate poll To know if there are more people crossing this way or crossing that way.
So you should ignore all of those stories.
They have no meaning whatsoever.
Yeah, both sides do that all the time.
Alright. Orange man versus hologram.
So here's a little extra...
So we were talking about Kamala Harris, and she appeared talking about, I guess it was about John Lewis's death recently, and it looked like, I said, that it looked like she had plastic surgery of some sort.
And then I saw, I think I saw her appearing after that, as in yesterday, and she didn't look like the same person.
In other words, she didn't look like the person who had the surgery, She just looked different.
And I don't know if I saw an old interview or a new one.
Can somebody confirm whether Kamala Harris has been on a televised interview since the one we saw that her face had some changes?
Now, if her face was actually just a cosmetic surgery situation, which it looks like, by November it's going to look terrific.
In fact, in a few weeks it'll look terrific.
So she may just look amazing in a few weeks.
Somebody says they didn't do the neck.
That's what I was going to say.
Because the current video I saw, I thought it was current, but I think maybe I'm wrong about that.
It didn't look like there was any surgery on the neck.
Somebody says a chemical peel.
I don't know that that would cause the structure of the face to look different.
I don't think it was a chemical peel.
Oh yeah, we're still talking about whether Biden wants to defund the police or simply take their money and move it somewhere else.
Totally different. Totally different.
Oh no, it's not defunding.
It's just taking the money and putting it somewhere else.
