Episode 1085 Scott Adams: Trump's Presser, Mysterious Unfollows, Biden Goes Full Gopher, Antifa Costume Play, CNN Helps Trump
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Powerful moves by President Trump
Why is Biden delaying his VP pick?
Reasons: 36% Black support for President Trump
Kanye's impressive bible-based platform
Police rights when Antifa blinds with lasers
Election influence by Russia, China, Iran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
*Pum pum pum pum pum pum pum* *Pum pum pum pum pum* Well hello to all of you dog-faced pony soldiers too.
It's good that we dog-faced pony soldiers could all come together.
And today could be an amazing, amazing coffee with Scott Adams.
Why? Well...
No reason. It's just going to be really good.
And if you'd like to enjoy it to its fullest, let me recommend that what you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stye, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Including shadow banning.
Sip.
Go.
Ah.
The simultaneous sip does get better every time.
Thank you.
First time I told you that, you thought, oh, Scott, it can't get better every time.
I mean, sooner or later, you're going to have one that's subpar.
But no. Never happens.
One time after another, the simultaneous sip crushes it.
Well, the biggest news, and I don't know how many of you had this on your predicted, but it seems that the candidate for the Libertarian Party was bitten by a possibly rabid bat.
And why wouldn't she be?
Because it's 2020.
In 2020, If the simulation isn't going to serve you up a major candidate for president who was bit by a, maybe rabid, bat, well then the simulation is not trying.
And I think it's trying this year.
Oh, is it trying? We've had more news this year than, well, all the other years.
Put together. Multiplied by three.
Let's talk about some of that news.
Today the headlines on Fox News are all a bunch of fake news.
So Fox has gone full fake news on the Bill Clinton, Epstein Island stuff.
And here's what I mean by fake news.
Do I know if Bill Clinton was ever on the island?
I do not.
Do I know that he wasn't on the island?
I do not.
But what I do know is that the person who...
And as far as I can tell, the only evidence that he was on the island...
Is from what I'd call an unreliable witness.
The same person who accuses Dershowitz of being there.
And Dershowitz has pointed out that her credibility is whatever is less than zero.
So if you...
Here's my problem with Fox News on their coverage.
What they're covering is true.
What they're leaving out is almost criminal.
What they're leaving out is that the one accuser who saw Bill Clinton on that island has no credibility.
None. And there's a background for that.
Alan Dershowitz does it.
I think the key reason that you should be aware of is that I think she also accused Al Gore of being there.
And I believe that there is a body of records proving that he was not there in the times that she said he was.
So, if caught in one lie that is identical to the type of lie, well, the type of accusation, that's a zero credibility situation.
That's not a, well, she got one wrong before, but that doesn't mean she's wrong about everything else.
No, it's a zero.
It's a zero credibility.
Which doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Remember, we live in an anything's possible world where candidates for president can be bitten by a possibly rabid bat.
So nothing's off the table.
I'm just saying that if you run this story without very prominently saying the only evidence has zero credibility, that's just fake news.
So if you think your fake news is only coming to you from the left, there's a prime example of Fox News faking it up for you.
And again, the news is accurate, but leaving out that context just turns it into fake news, in my opinion.
So here's a story that should worry the hell out of you.
So one of my followers, and might be on this periscope right now, D, Texas Grandma, 65, Grandma spelled G-M-A, noted that she was following me, but then somehow got unfollowed.
So automatically unfollowed.
So this prompted me to circle back to a story that I'd been talking about maybe a year ago, I can't remember, in which I had noticed that I had been unfollowed from Ambassador Grinnell, Richard Grinnell.
Now, I don't know what title you would give him.
Ex-ambassador, or do you still call them ambassadors after they're not ambassadors?
I don't know what the rule on titles is, but you know who I'm talking about.
He was acting out of the DNI for a while.
But I had been unfollowed from him, I think twice.
And so a year ago I'd asked if other people had been unfollowed, and it turns out there was a massive number of people in the comments that said, oh yeah, I just checked.
I was totally following him, and now I'm not.
So I decided to recheck that.
So a year has gone by, Just to see if it's still happening.
And sure enough, I don't know if it's like a new wave of unfollows or if it's still some trickle from the past.
But once again, my comments were filled with people who said, what the?
I was following him, but now I'm not.
And now I have to follow him back again.
And so I thought I would just test one more account just to see if I could guess somebody who is likely To have the same situation.
And the criteria I used was, okay, what is it about Ambassador and or Richard Grinnell?
Again, I don't know.
I don't know how the titles work for Ambassador.
But let's say he's always an ambassador if he ever was one.
Let's go with that standard.
So I thought, you know, what does he have in common?
What is there about him that would make him a target for this?
And the obvious answer is that he's an unusually good public spokesperson supporting President Trump.
And I thought, all right, well, I'll pick somebody else who is in that category of an unusually good communicator in favor of President Trump.
So I did a second tweet this morning.
Asking people how many had been unfollowed from Matt Gaetz.
So Congressman Gaetz.
And it turns out, a lot.
A lot. Now keep in mind, the people who are answering are just the people who see my Twitter feed and also followed Matt Gaetz and also saw that tweet and also checked and also thought to put a comment about it.
So If I can turn up that many people in 60 seconds who say, oh yeah, that happened to me, is it possible they're all imagining that?
I mean, it is possible.
By the way, it is possible.
It is completely within the realm of possibility that we're all imagining it.
But I don't think so.
I don't think so. It would be quite shocking if it were the case.
But actually, you can't rule it out.
I'm going to give you another hypothesis, which I also do not rule out.
But I think it could be ruled out pretty quickly if I just asked people on Twitter.
And it goes like this.
At least one person has had the following experience on an Android device.
And the claim is this.
That there's something about the app running on an Android device, and I don't know if it's every Android device, every release.
I don't know if it's the app or if they're using the browser to get to it.
So there's a lot I don't know, but the claim is this.
And you've had this experience.
Have you ever had the experience where you're in some kind of an app, doesn't have to be Twitter, and you go to click something, and just before you click it, the screen moves, and you click the wrong thing.
How many times has that happened?
Probably a lot, right?
Your finger is moving in to press a button, and then the screen scrolls, and you press the wrong button.
You're like, ah! Wrong button.
I deleted a couple of messages yesterday by wrong fingering them.
Anyway, so there's a belief...
No, not a belief.
A hypothesis. There's a hypothesis that there might be one interface situation...
Where people are automatically unfollowing who do not mean to do so.
But... how likely is that?
I don't think any of that explains it.
To me it looks like the A hypothesis has to be that there is some way that somebody is influencing Twitter.
Could be somebody from the outside.
Doesn't have to be an insider.
Could be somebody from the outside.
But something's happening.
Clearly. We don't know if it's third-party apps, because that's my other hypothesis.
When you sign up for some third-party apps, say TikTok, just to pick a random example, I'll just randomly pick TikTok.
Let's say you had the TikTok app and you wanted to sometimes share your TikToks on Twitter.
Well, I believe it asks you if TikTok could have control of your Twitter account.
Yeah, think about that.
That gives the Chinese government control, I think.
I would need a fact check on this.
But if you have TikTok and Twitter, both apps, on your phone, and you've told TikTok it can manage some of your Twitter actions, could the Chinese government, through TikTok, cause you to unfollow Ambassador Grinnell?
Could it? I think yes, but I would need some kind of a fact check on that.
All right. Yesterday, Twitter purged a bunch of accounts.
You saw a lot of people complaining, hey, my number of followers went down.
I don't think I'd worry about any of that yet because there's no evidence to suggest that's anything but maintenance.
Yeah, it's probably just getting rid of bots Probably just, you know, maybe cleaning out some, you know, dormant accounts, that sort of thing.
So I lost, just in case you want to know if it was just you, I think I lost, it's hard to know because I'm adding people at the same time, they're subtracting people, but if I were to baseline it, fewer than a thousand users maybe, and of half a million, So it wasn't a big percentage.
And I think you would be better off if they called the herd once in a while anyway, as long as they're doing it for the right reasons.
So I wouldn't worry about any of that yet.
Did all of you see the press conference that the president did yesterday, which was more like a monologue and a lot less like a press conference?
So of course, I think most of the networks probably didn't cover it.
Because they like the question part where they can try to embarrass the president.
They don't like the monologue part where he just talks about his accomplishments.
But I gotta say, that was one of the strongest press conferences that I've seen.
And again, I'm not sure if you want to call it a press conference.
It was more like a monologue.
But the monologue part was extraordinarily good.
And it was extraordinarily good for a number of reasons.
One was his tone and presentation.
It was, I would call it, serious and powerful, with sort of some joking at the end, which was extra good.
But when he was talking about his accomplishments, he would say stuff like, we've done X, and I'd say, wow.
That's pretty good. You know, that's a pretty good thing to stick in there.
And then he'd say another accomplishment, and I'd think, that's two.
And those are both pretty good.
Pretty strong. And then there'd be another one.
And they all seemed to have a flavor to them of strength.
Right? When he talked about the Tennessee Valley Authority, which, frankly, most of us, maybe none of us really understand what the hell that is, but it's some kind of a quasi-public, private government situation.
I don't know. I was too bored to look into it.
But when the president said, you know, we have some problems with their leadership, I fired the chairman of the board.
I thought to myself, That's pretty good.
That's pretty good. What would you love to see more than the president firing somebody who had it coming, allegedly?
It's a real strong move, so I don't know the details of the situation, but in terms of the press conference, Leaning off with a strong manager move of this guy wasn't doing it right and so I fired the chairman of the board and I'm going to keep firing all the board members because I guess that was the power that the government has.
I'm going to keep firing board members until they change the situation.
And then apparently he got what he wanted, which was also strong because I think the problem was they were firing Americans Who are higher paid to replace them with lower paid employees from other countries and then asking the Americans who are being fired to train their lower cost replacements.
Now, if your president isn't willing to fire people over that, you need a new president.
Because if you're the jobs president and the, you know, America first president, that is a really strong play.
So just the optics of it, and I would say the competence of it, because it just looks like, oh, shoot, that's exactly what you need.
You need somebody who's going to fire those guys until they stop this.
And there's a list of other things.
I forget the details, but every one of them was wrong.
Then he ended with a joke at the end.
I think this is maybe, maybe, I don't know if you would agree, but maybe the strongest public appearance he's ever made.
I don't think I've ever seen better than that.
You know, we like the rallies and the fun and the controversial ones, but when he turns off the controversy, and at the press conference, he just turned off the controversy, in my opinion.
You know, relative to any Trump situation.
But when he turns it off and he just goes, I'm doing the job for you, it's really strong.
But we do like the provocation as well.
Now here's the funniest thing he did.
One of his executive orders is going to be, he just announced it but hasn't done it, an executive order to Require that pre-existing conditions are covered by insurance.
Now, how did the press cover that?
Now, you are aware that the president is often accused of being the guy who's going to take that right away, the right to be covered even if you have pre-existing conditions.
Wasn't that one of the biggest The biggest claims against this president is that he was the one who would be behind taking away your pre-existing coverage rights.
And then the way the press covered it, when he says, I'll do an executive order, which is a really public thing.
I mean, basically, you would be roasted if you made such a direct executive order, made a public deal about not taking away existing, you know, What I said, the coverage for existing conditions.
And how did the news cover it?
The news covered it as it was stupid because that's already the law under Obama's past work.
Now, do you feel like that's the right context to cover this?
To say that it's an unnecessary executive order because it's already the law?
Now, here's the beauty part.
Because it was wrong, but it's that little bit of wrong part, yes, it is true that you don't need an executive order for something that's already the law of the land.
So in that sense, it's sort of wrong, which is what causes CNN to cover it.
And then while they're covering it, they have guaranteed that their audience hears this message.
Under a Trump administration, you're really, really protected on your Earlier conditions.
So Trump managed to do something that didn't make sense, an executive order for something that's already the law of the land.
It doesn't make sense from a CNN worldview.
I actually think it makes complete sense.
But that little bit of wrongness made them boost his signal perfectly.
This could not have worked out better for the president.
If you are ever going to be criticized, let's hope it's this way.
How about this? You're running for president, and you say, not only am I in favor of peace, but I'm going to pass a resolution saying that I'm peaceful.
And then the news says, you idiot, you don't need a resolution to say how peaceful you are, because you're already being peaceful.
Well, if the message you wanted for the public is, hey, I'm the peaceful candidate, that's how you get there.
So I thought that was a fairly brilliant statement.
Moved by the president to add an executive order that is unnecessary, but absolutely persuasive.
Because I don't think anybody is going to walk away from that thinking, oh, he's going to do an executive order and then do exactly the opposite if he gets re-elected.
It doesn't feel like that's even slightly possible.
This is clearly what he wants.
He wants these conditions to be covered.
That could not be any more clear.
According to Rasmussen, and I said this before, but it's blowing my mind, 36% of black likely voters approve of the president's job performance at the moment.
36%. If that number is anywhere close to true, the election's over.
Now I think the election's over anyway.
I don't think Biden actually has any real chance.
And anybody pretending he does at this point, you have to sort of check yourself at this point.
This isn't a real election.
Unless they substitute somebody in who might have a chance, this is going to be a stroll to re-election.
This is not a sprint.
The president could stop for a smoke break and still get elected president.
The glide path for the president is pretty clear at this point.
Just show up, do the kind of work he did at the press conference yesterday, which was outstanding, message-wise and tone-wise and everything else.
And I think he's there.
But here's the question we must ask ourselves.
Why is there such a delay in the vice president pick?
Now, obviously, some of the delay might be because it's a weekend and they would wait for something like a Tuesday or a Monday to control the weekly news cycle.
So it could be just, you know, it takes a while to get things done.
It could be it took longer than they thought possible.
But I think all the smart people are saying it looks like they might be delaying Because they've got a problem knowing who should be at the top of the ticket, if you know what I mean.
And you don't want to waste your best candidate in the second place if that's the one you think should have been in the first place.
So you can see where they're jockeying and saying to themselves, well, maybe it's not Kamala Harris for the VP role.
And by the way, if Biden announces it's not Kamala Harris...
I think you're going to have to start seeing Kamala Harris as maybe the replacement for the top spot.
That might be a signal, but it could also be a signal not, of course.
It could go either way. But certainly my antennae would go up and say, what?
What? Why are you holding Kamala Harris out available for a job if not the vice-presidency?
And why would black likely voters have such a high approval of Trump, 36% being at least historically high?
And I have some hypotheses.
I've often told you that one of the keys to persuasion is simplicity, and another key is repetition.
Build the wall, build the wall, build the wall.
If you hear it enough and it's simple and it's unambiguous, it just becomes part of you after a while.
There's nothing that you can hear that much without being forced to incorporate it into your worldview and give it a priority that maybe it didn't deserve.
But think about this.
Have you seen how disciplined Trump has been for the past several years When he talks about unemployment, he always, always leads with what he did for the African-American employment rate.
Now, if you, as president, the first thing that comes out of your mouth every time you talk about good employment is what you've done for the black community.
The first few times you hear this, what do you think to yourself?
Well, politician.
Politician pandering, right?
That's a little pandery.
Yeah, of course he's going to do a shout-out to a group that he wants to get some folks for.
So that's the way you hear it the first few times.
After you've heard it 50 times, you start thinking, oh, I guess that's just a pandery thing he's going to do every time.
After you hear it a thousand times, it's just true.
Right? So you've watched the transformation from a pandery kind of thing that any president would say to he has said it so many times, so consistently, so disciplined, and in my opinion quite credibly, like it doesn't look fake or artificial in the least, he has transformed that impossible thought into you believe it now, right?
Do you believe that the president literally cares that black lives matter in the context of unemployment especially?
He cares.
He cares. And the thing that people seem to forget is that the presidency is pretty transparent.
And you can't do a good job for the country.
You can't do a good job for yourself unless you've done a good job for the country.
The only way this president comes on ahead As if he does the work.
That's the only way.
It's so transparent.
There's no scenario in which Trump is thinking to himself, I think I'll just ride this and milk it and see if I can make some money in my side job as the Trump guy.
I can't even imagine it.
There's no way he would be so unaware of his environment, I guess, that he would not understand that the one and only path he has For the rest of his life, his other business interests, to do well, the one and only path is to do a really good job for the public.
Short of that, it just doesn't work.
You can't just leave the job and say, well, don't you love me anyway, even though you don't like what I did?
That's not a thing. He has to do a good job.
He has to. And he has to do it for black Americans, for everybody.
So I think the fact that he always highlights it went from a pandree-sounding thing to a, well, he's got to mean it at this point.
I mean, that's pretty disciplined to say it so often.
The other thing that doesn't get enough play is that if you're a black voter or just a black citizen, do you want open borders?
No. Do you want less choice in school?
That's what the Democrats are offering you, less choice in school.
If you're black, do you want that?
No. No, you don't.
Do you want fewer cops while you live in your high-crime neighborhood in too many cases?
No. Not most people.
Most people want some good policing.
They just want it to be better, of course.
We all do. So, if you tell yourself that this 36% black approval at the Rasmussen gets is an outlier, I would say to you, could be.
Anything's possible.
You could have a presidential candidate bitten by a bat.
That might be rabid.
Maybe not. Anything's possible.
But I feel like...
Let me put it a different way.
I never understood why it wasn't already 36%.
In my mind, if you have any appreciation for what black voters want out of life, and again, not treating them as a monolith.
I don't want to go all Joe Biden on you, but it is true that while there are many diverse voices in every group...
It is true that the black community, one would expect, would see the same benefits that you and I see.
Why would it be different?
And I think the whole cries of racism are disappearing every day that Biden does another.
What did Trey Gowdy call it?
He appeared on The Five yesterday.
Great appearance on The Five.
And... And he went through the list of what he called Joe Biden's racially curious comments, which is just the frickin' best framing for this, because I don't think anybody thinks Joe Biden is some kind of a racist.
But if you make enough, quote, racially curious comments, then it starts sounding like a dog whistle, doesn't it?
But because it's Biden, The people who are on the left must be thinking to themselves, okay, there are a lot of racially curious statements he's made throughout time.
Do they form this pattern?
Because if this were a Republican, it would be a pattern.
Right? But because it's Biden, is it a pattern?
Or is it a coincidence?
Is it confirmation bias?
Is it just one of those things?
But if it were a Republican, oh, this would definitely be a dog whistle situation.
But now it's Biden.
I have to think that every time Biden makes another racially curious comment, that it makes people say, maybe it's just the way people talk.
Maybe it's just the way people this age talk.
And maybe Trump is not sending secret racist whistles Maybe he just talks in a way that's less delicate or more offensive.
And that's all there is to the story, because it might be.
All right. The Babylon Bee, if you're not following the Babylon Bee, which is like, I guess I'd call it like the onion, except with a conservative flavor.
They are really good.
So, if you like your humor, on politics in particular, do a follow on the Babylon Bee.
But here's one of their headlines today.
So, headline from the Babylon Bee in a tweet.
Biden tells staffers to pick any black person for a VP since, quote, they all think the same anyway.
Now, just for context, this is alleged to be what Joe Biden thinks.
That the black community thinks the same.
So I'm not laughing at the black community.
I'm laughing at Joe Biden just to remove any doubt about what that means.
Kanye has published his platform.
And you can go take a look at it.
It seems that his platform is highly Bible compatible.
So much so that with each thing in his platform, he shows you the applicable Bible verse that supports it.
Some of the things he wants is prayer in school.
And one of his big planks is fixing the school system.
So it works for everybody.
Now, I'm not really into the prayer in school debate.
I'm not a believer and I don't object to it.
So, you know, work it out among yourselves.
I feel like I could be on the sideline on that one because I don't need the prayer for myself, but I understand its benefits.
So, just work it out among yourselves.
Whatever you do is fine with me.
But here's the part I like.
Kanye's platform is actually the best platform I've ever seen for the black community.
And I don't know if he'll ever get credit for that, but which is the other platform that's focusing on schools as like a key lever?
You know, Kanye covers the other stuff.
He even says that he would treat America first.
So Kanye actually says explicitly That he's going to negotiate, etc., and treat America first as the best model to move forward.
I think you should read it.
So just Google it, or I think Mike Cernovich tweeted it if you want to find it on his Twitter feed.
I think I retweeted it.
And it's worth reading.
It's worth reading. If you have a few minutes, read Kanye West's thing.
Now, I don't know if you saw Tucker Carlson's He did, what would you call it?
I guess a monologue on Kanye West.
If you didn't see it, it's some of Tucker's best work.
Like really, really good work.
I'm just talking about the writing.
The writing of that piece in which he went through the Kanye situation.
He talks about how until Kanye said he liked the president, he wasn't crazy.
In other words, the media treated him as Just creative and provocative.
Until he seemed like he was on the other side, and then the headlines are that he's crazy.
Now, Kadye himself cops to some mental challenges, so I don't think it's inaccurate to agree with the person who has a self-assessment.
But it was very interesting to see that before it didn't matter, and now they're throwing him under the bus.
So I would say Kanye has the best emphasis on schools, so he understands priorities best.
If you wanted somebody to champion you, you should pick somebody who has their priorities right.
And if Kanye had said, Black Lives Matter is my primary thing, you should dismiss him as somebody who doesn't know what's important.
But instead, he talks about education, hits the nail on the head of what's important, And bringing some kind of a spiritual revival to the United States, you could argue, would be a good thing.
I know that those of you who are atheists bristle at this, but so long as it's not anti-atheist, and it's not, it's not even slightly anti-atheist, I think you might be able to coexist with that.
The funniest thing in the news is that a t-shirt outfit Called Teespring, T-E-E-Spring, banned Antifa shirts while they look into it.
Now, they're acting as if they're going to look into it, so maybe it's not permanent.
But Antifa went all crazy about it because they said, hey, but you have...
T-shirts from this or that right-leaning group or extremist group or what else?
Hey, why not our shirts?
And here would be my answer to that.
I think Antifa is the only one they mentioned that's literally a domestic terrorist group.
I think if you're Teespring, you can get rid of a domestic terrorist group from your shirts.
Doesn't feel like a reach to me.
So, I would like to suggest that if they stick with this, and they don't bend to the pressure that's no doubt coming to their way, that you might consider doing a little shopping at Teespring, send a little money their way.
I suggested that if they make a shirt called, We Canceled Antifa, that it might sell a few copies.
Might sell a few. Now, I would not wear a cancelled Antifa shirt in public because it'd be like wearing a MAGA shirt, MAGA hat.
You get your ass beat. But I might buy one.
I might buy it and put it in the closet just to support Teespring if they stick with us.
If they don't stick with it, well, who cares?
As I tweeted this morning, I've developed this habit that I'm not sure I'm proud of.
Every morning the first thing I do is I get my coffee, I sit down at my computer, and literally the first thing I do after that is I look at the news, usually Twitter, and it's filled with the video from the night before, the highlight clips from the big game in Portland.
Now I call it the big game because I don't think it looks like politics anymore.
I don't think it looks like a social movement, even in the least.
Whatever Antifa is, It's closer to some kind of a role-playing costumed sport.
And it went to a new level last night, maybe recently, where apparently Antifa has developed their own shield, like a plywood shield like old-timey costume role players would have if they were playing knights of old.
And they've got the Antifa on there, and they've got their little crew of S.H.I.E.L.D. people with their plywood pushing against police.
And I turn it on, and this is not even slightly an exaggeration.
When I watch the clips, usually an Andy Ngo clip, for example, when I look at the clips...
I look at them like I'm watching sport highlight clips.
And I'm watching the police beat up Antifa.
And it looks exactly like watching a football game with tackles.
And you see the highlight reel of, ah, look at this spectacular tackle.
And I'm watching the same sport, except it's police, also wearing protective gear, just like football.
Also trying to control territory and space, just like football.
You've got fouls, just like football.
You've got announcers with loudspeakers, just like football.
Now, if you tell me that's not a sport, watching the two teams with strategy and costumes and You're meeting at the same field every night.
If you tell me that's not a sport, you're going to have to define sport a little bit more clearly, because it's not politics.
There's no politics in that.
It's not crime exactly, because if it were, they would all be arrested instead of just the bad apples that are doing something specifically.
So if it's not exactly crime, It's certainly nothing like a social protest, you know, in any way that we can understand it.
It's a sport. And I'm not going to see it any other way.
Now, of course, those of you who are jerks just said to yourself, Scott, how can you treat this as a sport?
People are getting killed and the police are being injured.
Why do you call this a sport?
Scott, how can you not take this seriously?
Well, you're just a jerk.
Because I am complicated enough that I can hold in my mind that it is a super tragedy, and it really makes me mad when the police are injured in particular, especially with these lasers.
I think the police should be able to shoot to kill anybody who has a laser, even if they're just brandishing it.
Even if you don't see it being used, I think the police should be able to shoot to kill.
Now, You might disagree, and it might be a terrible strategy because it would make the police look like a police state.
It would not be good for the country, but it would be good for the police.
And I'm going to say that sometimes, sometimes the citizens need to support the police.
It's not just always the other way around, right?
You know, you can't be sending your troops out there in the form of the police.
You can't be sending your troops out there unsupported.
And if you can't let them shoot a protester who's got a laser in their hand, just as if it were a handgun, if they can't shoot that guy, they ought to have the right.
So the best I can do is to say, if you put me on a jury, I will say, shot a guy with a deadly weapon.
I don't need to hear any more evidence.
If you'd like to present the evidence, sure, if you need to, but I'm not going to listen to it.
Because if police shoot somebody with one of those lasers at a protest, it has to be at a protest, I'm not even going to listen to the evidence at all.
Innocent. Boom. I'll go right to the verdict.
In fact, I'll stand up in the jury box and say, not guilty.
And then they'll say, sir, the trial hasn't started yet.
And I'll say, just try to save time.
Anybody here doesn't want to save some time?
Because there's no frickin' way I'm going to vote against a cop who takes out one of these kids with a laser.
Take his head right off.
It's fine with me. Now, it would be bad for your career, bad for your life, might even be bad for the country, but I'd still back you.
Still back you, if it happens.
Alright. And I've often said that, you know, one of the big complaints from protesters, which I think has merit, is that the police might treat different ethnicities differently.
Now, apparently the death rate is not...
Treated differently. The number of people killed doesn't seem to matter based on your race.
But probably there's maybe a little extra abuse.
Not maybe. There's certainly extra abuse in black communities.
Obviously it's because they're high crime neighborhoods.
That's a big part of the story.
But let's say you just thought that was a problem and you want to reduce the gap.
Well, one way would be to have less abuse against black citizens.
That would be ideal. As long as everything else works out, that's of course what you want.
But the other way to reduce the gap would be for the police in Portland to just beat the shit out of these protesters with the lasers like once a day, just to get the numbers up.
Because the higher we get with the police beating up white Antifa protesters with the lasers, they have to be doing something bad.
The more of those we get, the closer the gap will be.
So there may be two problems.
One is too many black people getting beaten up by the police, say the protesters.
I don't know one way or the other.
But the other is not enough white people getting beaten up.
So we could close the gap from both sides if we work at it.
So let's get some more white people getting beaten up by the police.
If they're Antifa people with lasers, that would be fine for me.
All right. I asked on Twitter, A little unscientific poll.
I said, would you hire a job candidate whose social media supported Antifa?
94% of you said no.
That you would not consider a job candidate who had pro-Antifa stuff on their website.
Now, if I were to ask the same question, Of people on the left, because most of my followers would be Trump supporters, I would imagine.
But if you ask the same question on the left, would you hire a Trump supporter, you'd probably get the same answer.
You'd get a pretty good answer.
So we've come to the point where your politics plus your social media make you unhireable by half of the public.
But here's what I was thinking.
All it would take is one major company...
With some serious gonads, to announce in public, just sort of preemptively, I'm just brainstorming here, but preemptively announce in public that they would not consider hiring anybody who was associated with Antifa.
Can you imagine that?
Imagine a Fortune 500 company where their leadership has enough balls to say the obvious, which is, we just have to tell you, It's hard enough getting employees.
And if you're supporting Antifa, you can't be on our list.
Because we just can't support that.
What would that do?
Just one. Just one Fortune 500 company.
Make an announcement. We're just putting it out there.
If you support Antifa, we're never going to hire you.
It's absolutely off the table.
Now, the first thing that would happen is it would make it safe for other companies.
But the other thing that's even bigger is that the parents of Antifa, which you know are supporting them, right?
You know the parents are sort of on board a little bit, even if it's only by lack of action.
It's going to activate the parents.
Because the parents are going to say, did I just find out that my child can never be gainfully employed by a big company where the pay is good and the benefits are good and therefore he will never leave my basement?
I think he could move the needle.
It would just take one big company to make that statement.
And suddenly parents everywhere would say, hello, Jennifer.
We'd really like you to have a job someday.
So, maybe you should rethink this whole thing.
Could make a difference. Alright.
Here is the update on the member Peter Navarro name-checked me on CNN and told CNN they should watch my video on the risk management part of the decision about hydroxychloroquine.
Obviously, I don't make medical recommendations.
But I can break down the argument based on what the experts are telling we naive citizens, and based on the information we have, which is less than what the experts have, what do you do?
So that's what I did.
The decision-making part, not the medical part.
I just listened to the medical part.
And so Navarro points to that.
CNN mocks me.
The Daily Beast mocks me.
The Hill mocks me. But nobody that I've seen, you can tell me if there's any difference there, nobody that I've seen has criticized the video and what I said in it.
Nobody. As far as I can tell, nobody.
Do you know how infrequent it is for me to put out something that visible and have nobody criticize it?
No matter what it is. It could be a comic, it could be a book, anything.
You always get low reviews on something.
There's always somebody who's going to say, this is no good, right?
But not this.
And I don't know if it's because nobody looked at it, because it wasn't linked in some of the articles, or if everybody agrees.
Or maybe I just didn't see any criticism.
It's possible, too.
So another day goes by where that just sits there as the truth, and the truth is the least important thing in the world, so nobody cares.
Let me correct for many of you a big misconception that you have, and I'm watching some people on Twitter who are making this analytic mistake.
It's based on a lack of knowledge about something in particular, so I'm going to fill in a knowledge gap For many of you.
So many people would say, do not take a medicine unless it has gone through the gold standard type of double-blind placebo test.
In fact, I had a conversation with my most Trump-hating Democrat friend last night by text, in which he said, with no uncertain terms, no doctor Now,
my friend is really well-read, highly educated, more educated than I, and very, very deeply involved in reading the news and following the news.
So this is a really smart, really well-informed person, Who used his smartness and well-informed status to tell me that it's crazy for a Trump, a Peter Navarro, or even a doctor to recommend using, can you believe it, the horror, a drug that has not gone through the clinical testing for the purpose it was prescribed.
To which I said...
Have you heard of off-label prescriptions?
He said he hadn't in a prior conversation.
He said he hadn't. He'd never heard of it.
And then last night I said, do you know that 20% of all prescriptions are off-label?
Which means that 20% of all the prescriptions, one in five, in this country have not gone through that standard That my friend and a lot of people on Twitter say is the only way you should ever prescribe something.
Because their blind spot is that if a drug has been proven safe for anything, and the cost is reasonable, that your doctor working with you can make a risk management decision that goes like this.
I've got this drug.
That it was only gold standard tested for another thing.
But we did find out the side effects are nothing to worry about.
So given that the side effects are trivially dangerous, barely enough that it's not even worth mentioning, and it might work, and there's some reports that it works, but they're not the gold standard, let's give it a try.
And how often does that happen?
Well, it turns out that some of your most popular drugs that are commonly prescribed Did not go through any gold standard testing except for other purposes.
So hydroxychloroquine has been tested in the past for its own use, lupus, etc.
I assume. I think that's true.
And if anybody claiming that it should not be prescribed because it has not passed the gold standard test, which is true.
It has not. But it's also because they haven't tested it in the right application.
So, if you see anybody saying that it hasn't gone through the rigorous trials, they are ignorant of how medicine works.
And you can fill them in with that 20% over-the-counter prescriptions that did not go through that process.
And it is so safe, so routine, so rational, that 20% of prescriptions are in that category.
Ask yourself, if this were a problem, would 20% of prescriptions be in this category?
No. How about this?
Do you have this problem where you want to make a joke about bad things that are happening?
But you don't know where the line is because you don't want to be cancelled because you don't want to be that person, but sometimes it's so funny you can't help it.
Well, when I heard about, as you know, the Libertarian Party candidate being bitten by a possibly rabid bat, I looked at the comments and I saw that Matt Schwartz asked, how's the bat?
Now, I didn't feel proud that I laughed at that.
How's the bat? And I felt even less proud when I responded to it.
With the answer to how's the bat, I said, ahead in the polling.
I don't feel good about it.
But if you laughed at it, well, maybe that's something.
Big news, of course, is we've got some big fake news about Russia, China, and Iran.
And the thought is that they're all trying to influence the election.
But the problematic one seems to be Russia, because according to the fake news, the Russians are trying to support President Trump.
President Trump's response to that is he's been the toughest on Russia, and he gives a number of examples.
That's not really the answer to whether Russia is trying to help you.
Because it could be true that the president is their toughest sanctions, toughest opponent, toughest president on them.
That could be true, and there's a really good argument for it.
It could be true at the same time they prefer him.
Because remember, Russia has two bad choices.
They either keep the devil they know Which is Trump.
At least they can talk to him.
At least they can deal with him.
Even though he's being a pain in the ass to Putin.
At least they can deal with him.
He's predictable. You know where he stands.
You know he'll make a deal.
Compared to Biden. Because Biden would just go after him.
Because apparently that's their technique.
In favor of China. Biden would be pro-China.
No doubt Russia's biggest risk.
And So it could be true that Russia wants Trump.
At the same time, it's true that Trump doesn't want that and is sanctioning the hell out of them for whatever the hell they're doing.
But here's my prediction.
You will never see a compelling example of this alleged Russian interference.
Because if you did, you would see that it's trivial.
The same way if you had seen, and almost nobody did, the memes that the so-called Russian troll farm put out in 2016, those memes looked like a sixth grade project that was underfunded.
They didn't even look like adults had made them.
They were that bad.
They certainly had no impact.
I definitely never saw them until It all came out and I got to see a bunch of them all at once.
And they weren't even in the same direction.
Some of them were anti-Hillary, some of them were anti-Trump.
I mean, you could argue that the troll farm was trying to influence the election because they made U.S. campaign topic memes, but you can't argue it mattered, not when you see them.
I mean, if you've never seen them, you could say, well, yeah, it seems entirely possible that a sophisticated KGB operation with the top minds in the world and great hackers could come up with memes that are just so powerful, so good, they can influence our election.
Yeah, I mean, in the abstract, that seems like totally a thing.
And then you see what they actually produced.
And you say, oh, this is a little sad.
And maybe it's not Putin ordering this.
Maybe it's somebody who thought they could please Putin by doing it on their own.
Which is what it looked like.
And it's common.
Apparently it's common for everybody to jockey for favor with Putin by just trying to do something that they think he would like.
And then, hey, look what I did.
So, don't expect you will ever see some examples Of Russian interference.
And if you do, it's going to be so trivial that you're going to say, uh, this is what you're talking about?
So that's my prediction.
About Iran, we may be seeing some more explodey stuff, as Jake Novak had pointed out even months ago.
There seems to be at least a suggestion that either Israel or the United States or both have some extra knowledge about where Iran is keeping their bad stuff, their bomb-making stuff, their weapons, etc.
So somehow we know more than we used to know, and it looks like maybe we or Israel is acting upon it.
So that's an interesting story.
Alright, I think that I've covered everything I'd like to cover.
Oh, the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
Well, that's a funny story.
Yeah, Sturgis, you know, all the bikers come to Sturgis at the same time and have a big event, and there's some fun talk that Antifa could show up, but Antifa's not going to show up there.
I would not expect Antifa to show up in Sturgis, but that's a funny thought.