All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
48:46
Episode 1068 Scott Adams: Charlamagne Tha Racist, Biden, Schools Reopening, Trump Press Conference
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, I don't know about you, but I can't go back to the old ways.
You know the old ways before coronavirus?
I've gotten to the point where if I watch a TV interview and there's a talking head and I don't hear a dog or a kid in the background, it doesn't feel realistic anymore.
Don't you like it when you hear the dog in the background of the TV commentators?
I don't know. It just feels a little more real.
So I'd miss that.
I would certainly miss it if my food servers stopped wearing face masks.
I kind of like that. I wouldn't like it if my airline starts putting people in the center row.
I'll even pay extra to not have anybody in the center row.
So there are a lot of things that will be better.
We'll miss them if this coronavirus stuff ever stops.
Or, as President calls it, President Trump calls it, the China Virus.
We'll talk about that. But first, what do we do first?
It's called the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a challenger stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including pandemics, racism, Unemployment.
But you name it, it's coming.
Go.
Ah.
Well, it looks like a lot of baseball players are kneeling for the national anthem. - Amen.
And I saw the pictures, and I know people wanted to say, it's a victory for Black Lives Matter.
It's a victory against President Trump.
Ah, ha, ha. We got him now.
Did anybody really care?
Have you noticed...
Have you noticed that...
Was it only a year ago that kneeling...
No, it was more than a year ago...
That kneeling for a sporting event was a gigantic, big issue?
What was it this year?
This year, it was the least important thing happening this week.
It wasn't even a big story for a Thursday.
I mean, it was a story, but did you find yourself caring in any way whatsoever?
I don't think I did.
I just looked at it and said, looks like everybody's kneeling.
So, somebody says they cared, and I'm sure some of you do, but you have the option of turning it off.
I haven't watched any of the games with the fake fan noise yet.
Is that any good?
They probably need to tweak that a little bit.
How many of you watched Dr.
Fauci throw out the first pitch, if it could be called that.
Now, I don't know, I don't want to make fun of Dr.
Fauci because, after all, he does not present himself as an athlete.
He is a professional in another way, so there's no reason to think that he should be good at baseball.
But I don't think I've ever seen anybody who was worse at baseball.
If you think I'm exaggerating, you have to watch it.
And I will say this in Dr.
Fauci's support, because he seems like a nice guy.
In person, he'd probably be fun.
But if you're going to throw a bad first pitch, do it the way he did it.
Because his pitch wasn't a bad first pitch.
His will be the one that will be shown forever as the worst first pitch anybody ever threw.
I think it went closer to first base than home plate and only about halfway there.
I don't know if it rolled all the way to the plate.
It was still in bounds when it stopped, I think.
So it was by far the worst first pitch you've ever seen in your life.
Now, like I said, I would have felt sorry for him if it was just a really bad pitch.
But it was so bad that it would be like a highlight loop for the rest of his life.
And if you do that, I mean, that just puts it into another category.
That's just funny.
And I would bet that Fauci privately thinks it's hilarious.
Like, after he gets over the initial shame of it, it's just going to be a hilarious story.
He'll probably show it himself at parties.
Anyway, the GOP's Louis Gober, I don't know if it's Gobert or Gober, but he's got an ERT at the end of his name like Dilbert and Dogbert, so I like him.
He introduced a resolution to ban the Democratic Party.
Now, didn't you know this was going to come?
It was obvious.
This was brewing. This was going to come.
So, Louis Gobert pulled the trigger on this.
And so this is what he introduced, quote, that any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House.
So, of course, that's the Democratic Party who did all of those things, and the Republicans never did.
So I don't expect this to get passed.
But it is funny.
And it does. It's more than funny.
It's functionally funny.
Because, you know, we always talk about where's the slippery slope going to end.
And where the slippery slope ends is at mockery.
You know, when the slippery slope, whatever it is, whatever the topic is, begins, the first few things that might happen actually could be legitimately just progress.
It's just, okay, society needs to move ahead a little bit.
So maybe it's just progress.
But if you keep sliding, you inevitably get to the point where it's more funny than serious.
And Louis Gomer's little funny, not serious resolution here kind of tells you where the limit is.
So we're in the zone of the limit of how far this can slide because mockery and reality just merged.
You got that, right? If you can't tell the difference between who is serious and who is just making a joke, if you really can't tell the difference, that's where the slippery slide is going to start to end.
And I think Louie Gohmert displayed that perfectly.
Because this resolution, if it had been the other way around, would have been taken seriously.
If it had been the Republican Party who had ever supported the Confederacy or ever supported slavery, but they didn't, if they ever had, the Democrats would.
You know they would.
This is not a joke. This is no hyperbole.
You know they would have asked for them to change their name.
So the Republicans are just using their own rules.
And that's what makes it funny.
Somebody's asking when my surgery is because you can see I'm struggling.
It is the 29th.
So I just have to make it to the 29th.
And I apologize for having to put up with me for that long.
All right. Did you see...
Are you seeing more and more...
What would you call it?
Blame on white women.
It seems that white women are having their turn in the barrel, if you know what I mean.
So there's more and more sense that the so-called Karens of the world, while meaning well, they do mean well, that they might be destroying the world.
So now there's a thought that white women might be the problem.
This is not me saying this, by the way.
This is other people.
But it does make me wonder, what is the percentage by ethnicity in the teachers' unions?
Because as I've said, the teachers' unions basically are the cause of systemic racism.
Now you're going to say to me, no, no, Scott, it was the ripple in time from slavery that causes it, plus the You know, the powerful elite white men who want to stay in power, that's what's causing it all.
And that's true.
It is also true that those same white men who want to hold on to power and everything else, they have for decades really since, I don't know, for a long time, let's say decades, have opened this big doorway and said, yeah, you probably can't get to where we are the same way we did.
Because you've got the legacy of slavery, blah, blah, blah.
We had advantages. But we'll open this other door in which, as long as you get a good education, you still can't get rid of all the traces of racism, but you can make them somewhat irrelevant in your personal life just by succeeding, going to school, having a good life.
Yeah, there's still a little racism, but it's not going to bother you as much because poverty would go down, everybody's doing better, crime goes down.
Basically, every problem It gets a little bit better if people are doing better with their occupations.
So what happened to that big door that was opened by the people who were in charge?
You know, the white people who had already made their money and had power.
What happened to that doorway that they opened so that everybody could get through?
You didn't have to be black, just everybody else.
You could just be poor.
And you could walk through that doorway and have a good life.
What happened to that door? That door got slammed shut by the teachers' unions.
The teachers' unions, by being a force that stopped all competition within the field of education for the teacher part, you couldn't get rid of a bad teacher.
What happens when you can't get rid of a bad teacher?
You have bad schools.
If you had bad schools and no competition, what happens to that doorway That the rich, powerful white men opened up and said, okay, we can't fix all of our stuff.
We don't want to give all our stuff back.
But your doorway is open.
Walk right through it.
It wasn't there. The doorway is blocked by the teachers' union.
And so the question I ask, because the social media seems to be dumping on white women lately, not me, I'm just saying that social media is doing it, I wonder, what is the composition of the teachers' unions?
Is it mostly white women?
I don't know the answer to that.
It might not be, but I gotta think that they're a large percentage, if not a majority.
So I'll just put that out there.
I would also like to make this provocative statement.
This is just an observation.
I don't know if it's true, but it seems like both the Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements have something in common.
You would think that they wouldn't have that much in common, but they do.
And what they have in common is that they're both female-run organizations.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, that's not true.
Basically, there's not much organization at all.
I wouldn't say it's organized.
But you watch the street protests and the dynamic, and then you look at who often has the microphone, Who's the person talking?
And it seems like it's usually women.
One of the founders of Black Lives Matter is a woman.
And Antifa, if you look at who's on the street, you see the moms are taking the lead now.
The moms are a big part of it.
And it looks like women.
And you look at who's yelling organizational things.
It feels like it's largely women-run organizations.
Now, also, the Democratic Party is a woman-run organization.
And I'm not putting a plus or a minus on this.
So if you're looking for it, you're not going to find it.
It's more of an observation that maybe gender differences are a bigger component of the whole understanding of what's going on than perhaps we recognize.
Because all of the Antifa and BLM stuff sort of looks like racial, right?
It looks like racial, and it looks like maybe socialism versus capitalism.
So those are the frames we've put on it.
But there is a real big variable about women and empowering women, etc., that's sort of a little less noticeable in the whole thing.
But it does seem like women are running the Democratic Party.
I don't think you'd disagree with that, right?
The Democratic Party has largely become a party run, either run by women or for the primary interests of women.
And again, I'm not saying that's bad, because in our society women have more value.
When I say women have more value than men, again, that's not an insult to men.
It's really just a biological statement that you don't need that many men To perpetuate your species compared to women.
So just on a biological level, women are more valuable.
So should we be surprised that they want to take as much power in society as they can get?
I wouldn't be surprised so of course they should the there's a report that you're gonna hate by Bob Lee who's a Republican Is it Bob Lee? I think so.
Did I get his first name wrong?
But Lee, anyway.
And he's a Republican, so this is important.
Keep that in mind before you hear the next part.
He's a Republican. Now, he may be not the Republican that you want him to be, but he's a Republican, and that's important.
And I guess he had up this study, so it was a report to By Congress, it was Joint Economic Committee.
Now, it's a Joint Economic Committee, right?
So these are experts on economics.
I'm sorry, Mike Lee is the answer, not Bob Lee.
Bob Lee is a guy who used to be an executive at a place I worked, and I got his name in my head.
It was Mike Lee, GOP. So thank you for that correction.
Isn't this better that this is live?
You know, I thought about doing these periscopes recorded so you get the better quality and everything.
But I make so many mistakes that you guys correct that it would be terrible if I recorded this.
All those errors would be on it every time.
It's bad enough that you have to wait for the correction.
All right, so this Joint Economic Committee came up with this.
They said the demise of the happy two-parent family, two-parent home, so you know where this is going, right?
He's a prominent Republican.
He's doing a study on what happens when you take the fathers out of the home.
So you know where it's going to end up, don't you?
Doesn't everybody do a study that just goes the way their party says it's going to go?
So you know he's a Republican, Mike Lee, he does a study on It's about the two-family versus the one-parent home.
You know where it's going to end up.
Except it didn't.
It was supposed to show that obviously having a one-parent situation is where your poverty has come from, and probably the assumption was, and a lot of people have said this, it's the primary cause of black Americans having a bad economic situation.
So that would be the Republican point of view.
Except that the study did not show that.
Now, it did not show the opposite.
It was ambiguous.
Meaning that if you think it's obvious that when you peer into all these many variables, everything from the legacy of slavery, systemic racism, you've got population, you've got where you are, what your situation is, what the policing is.
When you throw all of those variables in there with the single-parent household, You can't isolate the single-parent thing as the problem.
Now, some of it might be that getting rid of a bad father maybe doesn't hurt you too much if the father was not going to be that beneficial in the first place.
So I don't know what the...
I actually don't know what to make of this, except all of you who said, and you've been telling me this forever, and I think I'm the one holdout on this point, and...
Almost all of you have said it is a dead fact that the single-parent household is the core problem for black America.
I'll bet just about every single person who's watching this believes that to be not just true, but obviously true.
Just obviously true, right?
Would that characterize most of your thinking on the issue?
Now, you still could be right, because this study is not...
Conclusive in either direction.
But what's interesting is it definitely can't find that effect you all think is obvious and very large.
Can't find it. Now, somebody says, it's laughable.
It's laughable. Here's what I say.
I think we should be able to isolate whatever it is that makes the two-parent homes more successful if, in fact, that is the variable.
So I'm still open, so don't hear me wrong.
I'm not saying that this study claims that it doesn't make any difference if you have one or two parents.
The study did not say that.
It just couldn't find this big effect from having a one-parent household if you control for all the other stuff.
You just can't suss it out.
And that's exactly where I was.
So without seeing any studies, I said from moment one, I don't know how many studies you could show me because I don't think you'd be able to find...
That problem, I think it's going to be hidden in the variables, and that's what happened.
So I would give myself the only pat on the back in the entire United States because I believe, I don't believe there was one other person in the country who was expected to not find that variable, me standing out.
And again, it doesn't mean it isn't the main variable, just couldn't find it.
But if it is the main variable, and I'm certainly open to believing that, I just want, I'd like more, you know, More evidence of it, but I'm open to believing it.
I think we can find what is the key thing, or two things, or whatever, that makes having a second parent so important.
Because there might be another way to get it.
I've talked, for example, about...
Imagine this. Imagine creating a substitute for the...
The household structure.
Under the understanding that you'd love to have two family homes, but you just know it's not going to happen.
We just don't live in a world where you can want people to stay married, and they will.
You just can't want it into existence.
It's just not going to happen.
So if it's not going to happen that you'll have all these two-parent homes, what do you do?
What is the second best thing you can do?
Because we're not even really trying the second best thing.
But let me just throw out an idea or two.
Suppose you had some...
Housing situations.
Let's say it's low-income-ish housing.
And it's maybe an apartment situation or a compound or whatever.
So everybody's physically close.
And then you have a rule that says you have to add in a single, primarily single, maybe they don't have to be, but adult males who have certain professions.
So it might be, you say, you have to have, living there, a policeman.
At least one. You have to have living there one doctor.
One black lawyer.
Let's just say it's a black community.
And you have to have an engineer.
I'm just making this up.
So you have to have some good role model adult males.
Maybe one of them is a karate coach.
Just people who have the mindset of success and the mindset of staying out of trouble.
And the mindset of, you know, how to follow the rules and get what you want.
And you put them in the community and say, okay, these are everybody's dads.
So everybody has a new dad, actually you have several of them.
Now you've got a doctor dad, a cop dad, got an engineer dad, lawyer dad, and these are all your dads.
And the deal would be that they would act like it.
They would actually get to know the kids, and they would be sort of a force for good.
You're the single mom and you can't get your 14-year-old kid to do what you want.
Because your 14-year-old kid is bigger than you.
Right? You're a single mom.
Your 14-year-old male son won't do what you want.
What do you do? Well, that's when you call cop dad, doctor dad, psychologist dad, lawyer dad, and have them come over.
And have them talk to your 14-year-old son because they're bigger than your kid.
Sometimes, and you know this if you're male, right?
Every male knows this.
Sometimes, men need to be put into place.
Because men, just the way we're organized, our egos and our bad behavior will just grow like a goldfish in a bigger and bigger bowl.
If nothing stops us, We'll do some bad stuff.
Not every person, right?
You're awesome. I know you won't.
But in general, if you don't put any control on men, we have some bad impulses.
You know, on general, again, not all of you.
So, you can imagine finding the thing that works and re-engineering a situation, but nobody's working on that.
I'm amazed that even today...
We cannot agree on whether the Sweden model for coronavirus was the right one or the wrong one.
Can you believe that?
That even today, there is still a debate.
Did Sweden do it right or did they do it wrong?
Meaning that they didn't close down as aggressively, but they did have higher than normal deaths.
So I was just watching one of the Swedish experts saying, well...
You know, there's no proof this wasn't the right way because it's not over yet.
It's not over yet.
I believe that you cannot figure out what was the right thing to do and what was the wrong.
Now, if you say to yourself, were all these governors and the president, were they all wrong about opening up what we did, or at least trying to partially reopen because the infections, again, picked up?
So could you say...
Well, we had a choice of opening or not opening.
Most of the people who chose to open, there were a lot of them, because there were a lot of governors, a lot of mayors, a lot of people chose to try reopening.
And now we see the infections are going up.
And I'd say it didn't quite work, right?
That if we'd had magical abilities to see the future, maybe we would stay locked down a little bit longer.
Fair. So, did all of our politicians and did President Trump, by being a proponent for opening up, did they make a mistake?
Do we say all those governors, etc., all the southern governors especially, did they all make a mistake?
I would say no.
Because you did not have a situation in which it was known what the right answer was.
If you don't know what the right answer is, you have to test it And then pull back.
It was the only plan we had.
We only had one plan.
We'll try something.
We'll test it. And we'll give ourselves the option of pulling back if it doesn't work.
That's exactly what happened.
We got to the point where lots of smart people said, well, let's try it.
Exactly like we said we would.
Let's try it. If it doesn't work, we'll pull back.
We tried it.
It didn't work. Nobody's surprised.
Nobody's surprised. Because this was the plan.
Try it. Pull back.
Now, what I'd like to see, since there are a lot of people who got their flare-ups, I'd like to see them pull back in different ways.
Because maybe that'll tell us something.
For example, do you think that a lot of people were getting coronavirus by eating in restaurants with their own family indoors?
Do you think so?
It's possible. Wouldn't you like to know that?
Wouldn't you like to know that of the flare-ups, the extra coronavirus that happened because we reopened, wouldn't you like to know the percentage that came from hair salons, personal stuff like getting your nails done, which are gigantic industries that employ a lot of people, wouldn't you like to know that nobody ever got COVID from their pedicure?
Because I don't know if we know that.
I'm making that up.
I don't know if that's true. But I have a feeling...
That a bar without masks and people getting drunk and talking to each other too loud over music?
Could be like 40% of all of it.
Could it be that it is nothing except letting the children out?
Maybe that's all it is.
Because the children have been able to socialize for a while with each other.
Maybe that's all it was.
What if opening and closing restaurants has nothing to do with anything?
I think we'd like to know that.
So maybe the only way we'll ever know that is if the ones who end up reclosing stuff do it intelligently.
In other words, they say to themselves, I don't think it was this business, I think it was this business.
So maybe gyms?
I could easily see a gym being a virus stew.
So I'd like to see them reopen intelligently, and then maybe we'll learn something.
Here's a chilling story for you.
A guy named Mike Adams.
Now, he has my last name, and interestingly, he has the first name of Mike.
Now, I have to tell you a weird thing about this simulation.
People named Mike have always had a weird impact on my life.
And this is something I've said for years.
I first noticed this 40 years ago.
That whenever somebody named Mike entered my life, that something was going to happen.
Sometimes good, sometimes bad.
But I have this weird theme in my simulated reality in which as soon as a Mike comes into the picture, I've got to pay attention.
I don't know why. It's just that one name, nobody else.
And so this guy, Mike Adams, feels like the simulation is winking at me.
Now, what would it be about this Mike Adams, that I don't know, no relation, that would be winking at me from the simulation?
And here's the story. He is a recently retired professor.
When I say recently, meaning just last month.
So he retired, and he was the subject of controversy for his tweets.
He had written a book about political incorrectness, So he was one of these intentional, political, incorrect guys.
That was sort of his thing, as he was known for, he was an author for.
He was sort of a Bill Maher in just that limited sense of being politically incorrect intentionally as part of his deal.
So let me tell you the two tweets for which he was forced to retire early.
And there's a punchline coming to this story, so wait till the end.
He had... Two tweets that were considered vile and inexcusable by the faculty of the UNCW. And here are his tweets.
He said, talking about the shutdowns on May 28th, he tweeted, don't shut down the universities, shut down the non-essential majors, like women's studies.
Now, do you get fired for humorously but not humorously, meaning he actually means this, For having an opinion that women's studies is not a, quote, essential major.
Now, of course, he's just joking.
He doesn't actually mean this.
But he is making a distinction between a women's study major versus, let's say, an engineering degree.
Is that unfair?
Really? Is that unfair?
To say that some majors are more valuable than others?
Here's the other thing that he got in trouble for.
And let me ask you if this sounds racist to you or just politically incorrect.
He said, quote, in a tweet, Now he's using a funny name, In his opinion, for the governor of his state, Roy Cooper, he goes, Master Cooper, let my people go.
So now he's comparing himself to a slave because he's in North Carolina and they had slavery.
Now, does it sound like he was in favor of slavery?
No. No.
He's not in favor of slavery.
Is he making fun of black people?
No. No, he's not.
There's nothing in here in which he's making fun of slavery.
He's not minimizing it.
He's not doing anything. He's making a politically incorrect joke that you're supposed to go, oh, I don't know if he can say that.
But then you look at it and you go, okay, there's no actual content that would be worrisome.
It's not racist content.
He's just making a joke that makes you a little uncomfortable because you're not supposed to joke about stuff.
So those two were considered vile.
I would point out that neither of them seemed to have bad intentions.
They were just his opinions.
And he got retired for it.
So a month after he was the most politically incorrect guy, he was found dead.
So how many people die naturally a month after they're forced to retire with lots and lots of enemies?
Yeah. Now, we don't know the cause of death.
And I'm not going to suggest that there was foul play, because I think the police would have suggested that.
So I don't know that there's any evidence of foul play.
It feels like we would have heard it if there were.
But why is the guy with the name that the simulation uses to wink at me, with my last name, Mike Adams, why is he in the situation exactly like me, Which is, he's had good intentions, but he occasionally says things which are politically incorrect and makes other people mad even though they shouldn't be.
And then he was found dead in his home.
I feel like this simulation is giving me a warning, don't you think?
He's giving me a warning.
Here's a little story that was in the headlines by a fellow you've heard of, Charlemagne the Racist.
Have you ever heard of him? He's a He's a radio personality.
That Trump is the first racist president, whereas Charlemagne the racist points out that there were 12 presidents before him who owned slaves.
Now, oh wait, I'm not allowed to laugh because the topic is slavery, so I guess it's still too soon.
But I'm going to laugh anyway, so I'll be found dead in my house in a month, I'm sure, just like Mike Adams.
So were there 12?
Were there 12 presidents?
That seems like too many, right?
Or maybe their families did or something.
12 sounds like too many, but it was a big number.
Certainly noteworthy.
So the point is the same, even if the 12 is slightly off.
But here's what Charlemagne the racist said, and I'll quote him.
He said, Old white male leadership has failed America.
So right there, you're a racist.
I don't even need to read the rest of it, so that's just a...
A flat, plain, bald-faced, racist statement.
And so now, you know, he's a racist.
And he goes on, he says, there's nothing worse than an old white male, this isn't getting better, who can't recognize the faults and flaws of other old white males.
So, there are two ways to be a bad old white male.
One is to just be a bad old white male.
And the other is to be a bad old white male who doesn't recognize how bad the other old white males are, which makes you an even worse bad white male.
Pretty racist. Pretty racist.
On a scale of 1 to 10, where would you put this as a racist statement?
It's a 10, right?
This isn't a 9.
This isn't slightly non-racist.
This isn't, it's a matter of opinion.
This isn't, well, you could look at this differently.
This isn't anything but complete, unambiguous racism.
And then he goes on.
Racism is the American way.
Well, that's true. So that's a fair statement.
Donald Trump, and I say it's a fair statement because we have pattern recognition brains, and racism isn't something you could ever completely get rid of because we're not good at pattern recognition, and it's our normal operating system.
So when he says it's the American way, I don't think he says it's endorsed by America exactly, but it's certainly universal.
He said Donald Trump is not the first and sadly won't be the last, right?
He's just more overt with his racism than most presidents in recent times.
I would argue that that is confirmation bias, but that's not the argument for today.
Here's my point, Charlemagne the racist.
Do you think that Bill Clinton is an old white man who's terrible?
Because I think he was considered the first black president, wasn't he?
Bill Clinton. How about Chuck Schumer?
Is he an old white man who's doing nothing for you?
He's on your team.
How about all the other old white men on the Democratic Party?
Are they...
They're all racist, too.
They're all not doing the job.
How about Bernie Sanders?
Is Bernie Sanders an old white man who's the worst of the worst because he doesn't know how bad the other old white men are?
Or is he just a regular bad old white man, not the one who's extra worse because he doesn't know how bad he is?
And it'll be amazing because Charlemagne the racist will completely get away with this, meaning that there will be no blowback whatsoever, because nobody cares what I say.
But it's kind of a sign of the times.
And Charlemagne's thinking that Biden's basically just blowing it, and he's not going to get any black people to vote for him, and that that would be bad, I guess.
I think he's right about that.
So he's a racist, but he has corrected his points, I would say.
I think it's funnier and funnier that the Chinese consulate in Houston was closed for being, I guess, a den of spies.
And the question was asked, you know, why Houston?
And I guess they were the worst.
But it makes me ask this question.
If they closed the Houston consulate because they were the worst of the places that China was using as their spy center where they're stealing intellectual property, doesn't that mean that you also know the other Chinese consulates were also involved in the same thing, but they weren't quite as bad?
What? Should they all go?
Are we just starting with the first one to see if it changes any behavior?
What's happening with that?
Alright, somebody says NASA is in Houston and that might be why.
Could be. Although, I don't know if you need to be in person to steal stuff, but these days, could be.
And at the same point, when Trump was doing his press thing, he said this, And he was a little bit cryptic, so we're going to have to interpret this.
He said that he was less interested in the China deal now.
Apparently they've bought a lot of our corn recently, and that's good.
But corn doesn't tell you the whole story.
It's just one product. And I don't know who they're feeding that corn to, but they bought a lot of corn.
And so Trump said he's less interested in the China deal now.
And he sort of just looked at the public and said, you understand that, right?
Now, you understand means you're supposed to fill in the blanks why he's less interested in the China deal.
Why is he less interested in the China deal?
Well, the answer is that he's decided to decouple.
And that doing business with China doesn't appear like it's an option.
Because China has apparently made it so clear that That no matter how good your intentions were for how long, you can no longer ignore the fact that they were not looking for a win-win situation.
They were not into the whole capitalism thing where you win, I win, we both get richer, we both buy some more stuff.
Hey, look at us, we're both doing good.
That they don't have that system in mind.
They have a system of Chinese dominance which they apparently want to get to through, among other things, stealing our intellectual property and Because for reasons that are unclear, they can't do it themselves.
Now, some of it might be that it's just always good to steal the other people's stuff.
You know, if you're in a spy situation, maybe anything that they learn from the other country is good.
But what is it that makes China unable to innovate as quickly as us?
Why is that? Because Japan does, right?
And I think China has tons of patents.
So is there something that stops China from just making their own IP? I don't know.
Could be their system.
So here's some things that Trump said during the press conference.
Everybody wants to know, how's he doing with these press conferences?
So I'll give you my rundown.
I thought his press conference was solid.
Solid meaning there were no, you know, mistakes that become headlines.
He just played it down the middle, mostly read it, didn't get into speculations about medical stuff.
He did say something about, you know, someday the virus will just end.
That drives people crazy, because we don't have evidence of when and if that'll happen.
But, or why, really.
So, That was the one time he got a little ahead of himself in terms of what you should say in public if you're not a doctor.
But, trivial.
I would say, on the whole, that the press conferences, if he keeps them in this model, I would say that they're positive, quite positive.
And that he came out ahead on that.
Here are some things he's doing right.
Taking the side of Going back to school a little faster than normal.
I think that's a good vote-getter because I think parents really, really, really want kids to go back to school.
And because we live in a sexist world, as a general statement, it could be true that the mobs are a little bit more interested.
So Trump is weak with suburban mobs, but I gotta think that this is gonna help him.
Because Trump's the one pushing to get the kids back to school, and I'm pretty sure the moms want that too, on some level.
But here's what I'm going to add to the system.
The most important vote on kids going back to school, we haven't heard yet, have we?
Do you know who is the most important voice, and really the only one that's going to matter at the end?
It's the kids. Now, the kids are still not really engaged in the question, I don't think, because they're sort of thinking, well, if we don't go back to school, is that more like summer vacation?
It's not so bad anyway.
At this point, they can see their friends, most of them.
So, the kids, I don't think, have weighed in.
If you've ever been in an American family in the past 10 or 20 years, let me tell you what parents can't do.
They can't put up with their kids being unhappy for too long.
If the kids started organizing, and I'm kind of wondering if it might happen, if kids started organizing to demand something like regular school instead of home school, I think they would get it.
Because I don't think parents can ignore their kids if their kids want something badly enough and they have an argument for it.
And they would have an argument. The same argument the President is making.
That's a wild card that may stay dormant.
It may be that the kids never organize.
But they have social media.
The kids have social media.
It would take one kid to simply put together some viral content and say, hey, who's with me?
Retweet this or like my message if you think kids should go back to school and not do remote learning.
What would happen if you got 40 million kids?
I think there are 50 million of them at risk here.
What happens if you get 40 million kids to lobby their parents to go back to school?
They go back to school.
They would go back to school.
You don't know how powerful children are.
The only thing that keeps children from running the whole frickin' country is that they don't know they can.
If they knew they could, they'd probably do it.
They just don't know they can.
Now I'm exaggerating a little bit, but on a question that's directly about children, and the science is pretty much on the side of the children, it would be a lot like climate change, because they would be taking the side with science.
If the kids are willing to take the side of science with climate change, And there's a whole debate about whether the science is right, but I'm ignoring that for the moment.
If they take the side of the consensus of science, the kids are going to say, take us back to school.
And I think that's a wild card.
And I think Trump is doing a good job of balancing the risks.
The one thing I'd like him to say more about is protecting the teachers.
He does say we'll do what we need to do to protect the teachers, but I think he could put a little more A little more caring into the fact that teachers will die.
Teachers will die when kids go back to school.
We don't want it, of course, but I don't know that It would be more teachers dying than they would from regular flu, if you want to put it in that perspective.
So, I'll give the President an A for his press conference.
I thought it was solid.
Didn't produce any negative news of note.
In fact, when I looked at CNN just to have my morning laugh, and I'm serious about this, my morning laugh is to look at CNN And see what the most ridiculous of their punditry says, because it's always good.
And I thought, okay, I watched this press conference.
Trump did a good, solid job.
And he hit every note that his critics asked him to hit.
He was taking it serious, which is what the press conference gives you.
He was saying, I think, reasonable things.
He was compatible with science.
He really hid all the notes.
He said wear a mask. He said it's going to get worse.
He's not underplaying it.
All the things his critics wanted to do, he did.
And what did they say about it?
Well, it's not just about the tone and the message.
And I couldn't even read the article because it was funny.
I'm not going to read whatever weird criticism they can concoct from a guy that they admit just did exactly what they wanted him to do.
So... That was pretty weak.
So I would say if things go the way they are, there's a big, now we have a big variable with if we don't keep things open, what's that do to unemployment?
And would November look like things are getting worse or better?
So now it's a little harder to tell.
My prediction remains the same.
The economy should be improving markedly.
That'll be good for Trump.
And I think that the protesters will continue making the no police, defund the police thing look ridiculous.
I think that the going back to school will get Trump some bombs.
And I think that...
I'm going to have to end it here because I can't even talk anymore.
My head is so stuffed up.
And if Rasmussen poll is the one that's getting it right about black support, Trump already has...
Historic black support.
And he's just going to start picking off the weaker segments, I think, between now and then.
I don't know why he doesn't just legalize marijuana, by the way.
That's low-hanging fruit.
I've always been surprised about that.
That's just leaving free money on the table.
Democrats are going to pick up that free money.
Slaughter meters at 100%.
▲
Export Selection