Episode 1090 Scott Adams: Join me To Find out if Kamala Harrass is the Right Pick for Grabby Biden
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Kamala and the double-puppet maneuver
Attacks on Kamala's ancestry and life
Kamala + top shelf advisors = powerful
BLM co-founder says looting is reparations
T Cells and herd immunity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Hey, did anything happen yesterday that would be of interest to did anything happen yesterday that would be of interest to me?
Oh, yes it did!
Well, you may have missed my celebratory little periscope that I did last night after my prediction came in, but...
This is the one that matters.
This is the periscope you want it to be at.
Yeah, because this one has something called the simultaneous sip.
It makes everything better.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including predictions.
Join me now.
Go. So good.
So good. Well, did you hear the news?
Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris.
Don't call her Kamala.
No, no, no. She's not Kamala.
She's Kamala. We must all learn to pronounce it properly.
It's not Kamala.
It's not Kamala.
It's Kamala.
And you should say that right, otherwise it's disrespectful, as...
As I guess Tucker found out last night.
Which was pretty funny.
When Tucker was pronounced, was corrected on the pronunciation of her name by a guest, Tucker said, who cares?
Alright, let's talk about what's going on here.
Number one. How many of you have read my book, Winn Bigley?
In which I talked about the election in 2016 and predicting Trump would win.
Well, if you did, you would know that there's an odd little claim in that book.
A very odd little claim.
And it goes like this.
And once you hear this, it's hard to unhear it.
You can't tell the difference between a good prediction and something you caused.
Because sometimes you can cause your prediction to come true.
Now, I'll just put this out here.
I'm not saying that I caused Kamala to be selected as Vice President.
I'll just put this out there.
If anybody read my book, Win Bigley, who happened to be a Democrat, well, first of all, is it likely that any influential Democrats would have read my book, Win Bigley?
Any? Probably.
It's a big country. You'd expect some people to check out any kind of book that talked about influence and persuasion in the context of an election.
If you were an election professional, if you were an advisor to any candidate, would you be tempted to look at a book that taught you how to do it better?
Which, indirectly, Winn-Binkley does.
Probably. If all you were doing is even researching what the other side is thinking, you'd probably come across that book.
And that's where I talk about prediction and causing something looking the same.
And the question is, when I said that Kamala would be the strongest choice...
Did that make any difference?
Was there anybody on the Democrat side who said, you know, we can't tell who the strongest choice is, but that guy over there who got some things right before, he thinks Kamala Harris is the strongest choice.
Could that influence their decision?
Don't know. That's why I don't make the claim.
I'm just making the interesting claim that they look the same and you can't sort them out.
So it's entirely possible that I might have been inadvertently part of the process of the decision making where they said, you know, we can't tell the difference, they all look good to us, but why are they so scared of Kamala Harris?
It's possible. I don't make the claim, I just put it out there.
So I think what you're seeing is what I call the Double Puppet Maneuver.
I don't know if we've ever seen a Double Puppet Maneuver before.
But the Double Puppet Maneuver, oh, you want to say it, don't you?
Let me give you a moment.
Once you hear something like Double Puppet Maneuver, you have to kind of say it out loud because you saw how good it felt when I said it.
Double Puppet Maneuver.
Yeah, take some time.
Say it at home. It'll feel good.
And it works like this.
The first puppet, of course, is that Hollow Joe will become the puppet of a stronger vice president.
And it's very unusual to have a vice president who's stronger than the top of the ticket.
In fact, is it the only time?
Has it ever happened before?
Have we ever had a vice presidential candidate Who basically everyone on both sides looked and said, okay, the vice president's a little stronger than the top of the ticket.
Have we ever had that? I think it's the first time.
So Biden is the first puppet, and Kamala has her hand up his little puppet innards.
But here's the double puppet part.
Yeah, I said it, double puppet part.
And The question is, who has their hand up Kamala Harris's back?
Is she her own candidate?
Or are there powerful people behind her who are playing the long game and expecting that she's going to be the power and that backing her will pay off in the long run?
And who are those people behind the curtain?
Well, We do know that Harris apparently inherited a lot of campaign people from the Hillary Clinton world.
And she's probably got some Obama people who back her as well.
So, do you know who the president would be if Biden and Harris won?
Nope. Oh, Dick Cheney.
Thank you. Yes. You make a good point.
Dick Cheney was...
Possibly the power behind Bush.
But I would still say that Bush was, even on his own, he was a powerful character.
In fact, I tell this story.
Before Bush Jr.
ran for office, I was giving a speech in Texas, and one of the other speakers...
I think the one before me was, or after me, I can't tell.
I can't remember, but it was George Bush.
And he was, when he was governor, and one minute after he started speaking, you could feel the energy in the room.
And it was not the energy of a governor talking to people in their state.
George Bush, the younger, had that, he had the thing.
If you were in the room before he was running for president, you knew he was going to be president.
You could feel it.
I just sat there and thought, I'm seeing the next president here.
Now, I wasn't a big supporter.
I'm just saying that you could feel it sitting in the room.
You knew he was going to be president.
It was almost palpable.
You could almost see it like the future.
It was just so obvious when he walked in the room.
And you either have that thing or you don't.
You know, Obama had it, Bill Clinton had it.
So although it is true that Cheney may have been the power behind the throne, it is nonetheless true that Bush, the younger, he had the goods when it comes to how the public sees him.
But anyway, let's talk about the double puppet.
I would say that Hillary Clinton found a way to be president.
Yeah, you're seeing it in the comments.
Yeah, it looks like the Clinton operation, if you will call it.
You know, it doesn't have to be an organized thing, but, you know, there is a connection of people who have common interests and connections to the Clintons, etc.
And so the Biden candidacy looks a lot like a double puppet maneuver with Hillary Clinton, or at least that machine.
Being more influential than you think that they ought to be.
Now let's talk about how the Democrats, and especially their pet press, is dealing with this.
So now this is sort of a challenge for the anti-Trump, you know, pro-Biden media.
How are they going to treat Kamala Harris?
Will they treat her harshly?
No. No, they won't treat her harshly.
They will put a warm embrace around her.
Do you think that they have all coordinated their messages?
Well, it would be a surprise if they hadn't.
If CNN's universe of punditry, if they have not talked directly or even indirectly to the Harris-Biden team, To figure out how they should cover the campaign in the most friendly way, I would be surprised.
I would be surprised because that wouldn't conform to anything that we've observed for the last several years.
They do seem to be working together.
And I don't mean that in a conspiracy kind of a way.
I mean that as in, well, just open your eyes.
It's obvious. You just have to watch to know that they're working together.
I don't think that's anything that is disputable.
And so I claim that if you were to look at the choice of words that the pro-Kamala people are using, you can start to see what they've agreed is the message.
And it may come out, it might slowly form, or it might very quickly form, but already I think we're seeing some hints.
Now the background to this is I told you that when I studied hypnosis, I learned that people will reveal their hidden intentions by their choice of words.
They don't know they're doing it.
They think they're saying X.
But if you look at the words they choose, the words are telling you, you're saying X.
But the words you chose are making me think Y.
And I don't think it's an accident.
And the hypnotist learns that it probably is not an accident.
Now obviously there could be false positives because people do just pick weird words sometimes.
But if you look at the entire body of work and there's a consistency to it, then it means more.
So you look for the pattern, not just any one person who said one thing.
And here's the first part of the pattern.
Obama made a statement And he was happy about the choice, or so it seemed in his statement, and he used this phrase.
He said that Joe Biden nailed the decision.
He nailed the decision.
Interesting choice of words.
Because there are a million ways to say that it was a good decision and you support it.
But nailed the decision.
What's that make you think of?
Well, if you're having fun on Twitter, you can say, ha ha ha, nailed it.
Kamala Harris has that interesting personal life in her past with Willie Brown.
Ha ha ha ha, nailed it.
Well, that's one interpretation.
That... I don't know, maybe Obama was thinking in those terms?
I don't think so.
I don't think he was.
Here's what I think.
What is the other context in which you hear nail a lot?
When you hear nail, would you say there's a nail in the campaign?
No. How about a nail in the house?
No. How about a nail in the coffin?
How about a nail in the coffin?
Because Kamala Harris is the final nail in Biden's coffin.
Meaning, I don't mean literally dying, I mean his political death.
Because you need a Kamala Harris to get rid of a Joe Biden.
He doesn't leave on his own.
Let me ask you this.
If you were the powers behind the Democratic Party, And you knew that Joe Biden couldn't get to the starting line, much less the finish line.
And you had to take him out.
You had to.
What kind of vice president would you put in that position?
Because it's the vice president who's going to have to do this.
Tap, tap, tap on the shoulder.
Joe, we need to have a talk.
I don't want to be unkind.
I'm just being realistic.
I know you'd want me to tell you.
You're not ready for this job.
Who else could do that?
Could that be done by, let's say, Val Demings, somebody that Biden maybe just met this year?
It'd be hard. How about somebody that he's known for a while, but he's not too close to, maybe Elizabeth Warren?
It'd be a hard conversation, wouldn't it?
Elizabeth Warren? Joe, I think you're not quite ready for the job.
I don't think you'll come across.
How about somebody who Joe Biden's son, his beloved son, who's sadly departed from this world, how about someone who was close with his son and with him, and he felt a real connection with him?
Could that person tap him on the shoulder and say, This is a tough conversation, but it's time.
Yeah, she could.
Name one other person who could do that.
Nobody. Well, I mean, nobody we know of.
Nobody who has a national reputation, ran for president, is a legitimate contender.
For the presidency, it fits that weird little, little, little niche where they could be president, you could see him that way, but they could also tap him on the shoulder and And not be a dick about it.
Because it's the being a dick about it that's the tough part to pull off.
Anybody could tap him on the shoulder, but you've got to do it right.
First of all, he deserves it.
Joe Biden deserves a respectful final chapter.
And he deserves somebody who cares about him, and I believe she does.
To do the final move.
So she's the perfect one for that.
Alright, so that's Obama saying that he nailed the decision, which makes me think of a nail in the coffin, which makes me say, huh, is that just a coincidence that he would use that word nail that immediately made me think of coffin, which immediately made me think of the end of Joe Biden.
Maybe. Could be just a coincidence.
Easily could be a coincidence.
Let's see some other wording here.
This is from Chris Silliza, pundit on CNN, who you may know as being very Democrat-friendly.
Not too surprising on CNN. And here's his wording.
Listen carefully to To the last part of this.
Because it's the exact choice of words that matters.
Joe Biden made the pick that maximized his chances of continuing to make the race a straight referendum on Trump, blah blah, while also selecting someone whose resume suggests being ready to step in.
Hmm. Someone whose resume suggests being ready to step in.
Do you say ready to step in?
When you're talking about somebody who is ready for the presidency.
Because ready for the presidency is what we always say, right?
Yeah, the vice president, pick, that's a person who can walk into the job tomorrow.
That's the way you normally say it, right?
But when do you say step in?
Step in sounds like you're the person who's causing something to happen.
Stepping in is active.
It's not, hey, something happened, I guess you're the default, and now you're the president?
No. Step in is an active word, or an active term.
So let me read the whole sentence.
It suggests being ready to step in if and when Biden decides to step aside.
What? If and when Biden decides to step aside?
It would be one thing to say if, if Biden decides to step aside, It's another thing to say when.
Now, of course, he can defend this easily, right?
Because Biden has already said he would be a one-term president.
So you could easily interpret this as, oh, when he decides not to run for a second term, she'd be all queued up.
But the word is step in.
It's not a continuity of the policies they're talking about.
They're talking about stepping in to stop something.
If and when Biden decides to step aside?
Step aside?
All right. There's no doubt in my mind that this signals as clearly as possible that the vice president is more important in this decision, obviously.
So it looks like a cat is on the roof situation.
It looks like the...
The friendly press is going to start softening the room so that when their own team hears for the first time because it might be a surprise to Democrats but not to Republicans so when their own team hears that maybe the Vice President just possibly putting this out there just spitballing I don't know anything could possibly happen we're just considering all possibilities if she were to say step in Now,
if you just blurted this out on day one, it would be pretty bad, wouldn't it?
If you just blurted it out and say, alright, we got the person who's at the top of the ticket.
She'll be getting rid of Joe, and just think of her as the top of the ticket.
Well, you can't do that on day one.
That's not a day one message.
You gotta creep toward it.
You know, that's the joke, the cat's on the roof.
You know, if the cat died, you don't want to tell your friend or your brother that his cat died, so you soften it a little bit.
Say, hey, you know, the cat's on the roof.
We're trying to get it down. The next day, you say, oh, we tried to get it down, but it jumped, and it looks like it's injured, but, you know, we took it to the vets.
We'll see. And then the third day, you say, it succumbed to its injuries.
So when they say, Kamala's ready just in case she needs to step in, you know, if and when, if and when Biden decided to step aside.
I think that's telling the public, don't be surprised.
I think it's softening the room, is what you're seeing.
Now watch for this.
See how often the Democrats themselves, and they might hold off for a few days, but see how often they talk in these terms as her as the replacement, until it's so It seems so ordinary that it doesn't even seem unusual that they replaced the top of the ticket before, maybe before the nomination, would be my guess.
I think they're at least looking at it for before the nomination.
I feel it's safe to assume that conversation has happened.
All right. How about somebody else?
How about Frida Gitas writing on CNN? How would this pundit try to frame Harris in the most friendly way?
And this pundit called her a centrist.
A perfect match for Joe Biden because he's a centrist and she's a centrist.
And then let me check on Fox News.
Let's see if they're calling Kamala Harris a centrist.
Don't see that word.
Nope. Turns out that Fox News and all the Republicans will be calling her a wild, wild progressive who is going to change things so radically you won't recognize this country and she'll be ruining it in the process.
So what do they do to combat Kamala Harris being a wild socialist crazy person?
They say, oh, she's a centrist.
Centrist. So watch them try to protect her in the centrist thing.
And how about this?
So this is also from Frida Kitas.
I think I'm pronouncing that right.
We're close. Says of Harris, she would become the first woman vice president.
And she also has a very good shot at becoming president.
Not only because of Biden's age, but because she is now the automatic choice for his successor.
Not only because of his age.
So we're already talking about successor.
Did people talk about Mike Pence as Trump's successor?
Did you ever hear one time somebody say, oh yeah, Mike Pence, he would be Trump's successor?
No, you didn't.
So watch all the language about that.
Assuming that the two tweets...
Alright, I'm getting lit up here on incoming messages, so I'm going to have to turn this off.
So, Sean King, you all know him.
He is a, what would you call him?
An activist for the black community.
Would that be fair? An activist for the black community.
Who, for whatever reason, doesn't appear to be a black person, but it's not for me to judge.
He self-identifies that way, but that's part of the story.
So apparently, some time ago, before Biden was selected as the presumptive nominee, he said, there are two candidates you should not consider.
He tweeted this. One of them is Biden, and the other is Harris.
And the reason that those two in particular are ruled out It's because they're too racist in their past decisions, meaning police actions and the legal system and causing more black people to be put in jail.
And so Sean King said, those are the only two you should not consider.
Totally racist policies.
Anybody else is okay, but those two, off the table.
And he's revised that to 100% support.
So, well, a lot can change in a few months, can't it?
We went from, there are only two that you can't consider, to 100% support.
What a good choice. Got the strongest team I've ever seen.
All right. Let's talk about the attacks coming in on Harris.
Does it matter that allegedly her, I don't know, great-great-grandparents or somebody owned slaves in Jamaica?
Do you think that that will matter to anybody?
The answer is no, it won't.
You know, the Republicans will make a big deal about it, but I think it will change zero votes.
Because here's the thing.
If you're trying to get reparations, and you're trying to get something, or you're trying to influence, etc., yeah, you make a big deal about maybe the people you're trying to influence.
Hey, you know... People who look like you own slaves and therefore maybe we should get what we want.
So it's a good line of attack, but it's not one anybody believes in.
In other words, even the people saying you should pay reparations, it's more of a technique.
I don't think too many people think that I owe anybody reparations, having no connections to any slavery in my past whatsoever, and indeed being closely connected to the abolitionists, In the Northeast.
You know, that's where my family comes to that line.
So does anybody really, I mean really, think that I owe any reparations?
Well, they'll say it.
If I ask people, they say, yeah, here's my argument.
But nobody really feels it, right?
It's just sort of an argument you can make, and it might work.
But in order for Kamala Harris to suffer from this accident of history that some of her relatives were in that line of business, allegedly...
You'd have to care about it.
And their own team doesn't care about it.
It's just a technique.
So I don't think that'll have any impact.
You know, it's a kitchen sink kind of an attack where you just throw everything at her and see what sticks.
So that'll be in the mix, but won't be especially important.
How about this?
I think it's interesting that the pro-Kamala Harris people can't quite decide how to label her.
I don't know if they'll ever settle on this, but is she the first black woman on a major party's presidential ticket?
Or is she also the first Indian American?
Or is she the first Indian black woman?
What do they call her?
Will the black community say, oh yeah, she's one of us?
And if they do, do they just ignore the other half of her?
I mean, it worked with Obama, right?
With Obama, the black part of his heritage was embraced, and that sort of became the defining thing.
And I think that worked to his advantage.
Because much of the country was saying the same thing.
I said this too, which is, can't we just get a black president?
Can we just get past this?
You know, as long as he can do the job.
You know, I'm not even too particular if it's my first choice.
I'd like to get a black president.
So I'm completely guilty of judging Obama positively because of his ethnicity, because I just thought the country needed to get past it.
And I also think we need to get past the never having a woman for president.
Maybe not this time.
I'm not all caught up on it being this election, but yeah, America needs to get past this.
And I would even agree, in a weird way, you might not expect this, but I would agree with how many people signed a letter in the Democratic Party saying, you know, let's put a black woman into the presidency.
Or at least set one up to potentially be there.
That's not a wrong impulse, as long as it's a good candidate.
Because you can get a twofer.
What would be better than having a perfectly good candidate who also makes the rest of the country feel, okay, anybody can be president.
We've now demonstrated that That anybody can be president.
Well, I think you'd have to throw in a LGBTQ candidate someday to really say everybody.
But it'd be a plus, in my opinion, if she were the right candidate, and I'm not sure that's the case in this case.
So we'll see how she gets labeled.
And it almost feels like the Democrats are going to have to test this.
Think about how distasteful this following thought is.
The Democrats probably are polling and doing focus groups, which would be normal, all the way through the process.
But one of those focus groups probably, or polls probably, will be, what do we call her?
Do we just say, do we just go with African American because that's our strongest play?
Or do we go with both and say, yeah, she's better than just being black.
She's also got the first Indian American thing going for her, too.
And how do you feel?
And this is the part I have a complete blind spot for.
I have no sense for how this will be received by Indian Americans.
If you have Indian heritage and you're an American citizen and you're going to vote...
Do you care about this at all?
I don't know. I don't know if you care about it one way or the other.
And if you're a black citizen in this country, does it bother you that they couldn't find a proper black person?
Here I'm using proper in the, you know, not a serious sense.
Proper in the sense of, seriously, you couldn't find somebody who was just black.
All the other candidates who were being considered, not all of them, but a number of the other candidates who were being considered, you wouldn't have to wonder what was their heritage.
You'd just say, okay, this person's black.
Aren't we glad we have a black vice president on the ticket?
So, I don't know.
Somebody who is a member of the black community needs to fill me in.
Because I don't have a good sense of whether that's a positive or a negative.
Oh, and then there's also the Jamaica connection.
How do people see that in the United States?
So I don't know.
I'll leave that as an open question.
Somebody can fill me in later.
How about the claims that Kamala Harris, somebody said this, embodies systemic racism because She had allegedly put innocent black men in prison and tried to keep them there.
What about that? Do you think that Democrats will treat her harshly, as Republicans hope will be the case, because she was tough on crime and maybe even tough on innocent people?
She was so tough on crime that, you know, if she got you in jail, she wanted to keep you there even if the information changed.
That's the claim.
I don't know that that matters.
I actually don't. I just don't know if Democrats are going to respond to this.
Because I think Harris will do a perfectly good job of reinventing herself.
So that whatever she used to do as a prosecutor...
And let me tell you the easiest way to do this.
If I were her, I would just say, when I was a prosecutor, I did everything in my power to be a prosecutor.
Did I ever get one wrong?
Probably. Probably.
Unfortunately, you can't really be a prosecutor in a major metropolitan area and get them all right.
I wish it were an option, but I don't know that it is.
However, what I can tell you is that I will take that same intensity that, you know, I know people saying that maybe I got something wrong, but I'm going to take that intensity to the presidency or vice presidency, etc.
So I think you could just describe it as being a different job.
The prosecutor mindset is different from the Senate mindset, and I think she could just say she's reinvented.
I don't even know if she needs to say she did anything wrong.
She could just say, you know, that was when I was a prosecutor.
Let's talk about modern times, not ancient times.
So that's a reasonably good attack, and I can see that I think some of the black community was already Primed to be not too happy about that part of her past.
So we'll see if that makes a difference.
They could. The New York Times hilariously ran a full, gigantic photo of Harris looking pretty awesome.
I think she had a leather jacket on, arms are crossed, and it was a flattering angle.
It just made her look powerful and substantial.
And then somebody went back and saw how did the New York Times Cover the selection of Mike Pence, and they show that the day he was selected by Trump.
It's this little postage stamp in the corner.
So one of them is this full-page glamour shot of Kamala, but Mike Pence, postage stamp, bottom right-hand corner where nobody reads it.
So if you think that your press is independent, ha ha ha.
Alright, so one of the things that people are saying about Kamala, and I think you've got to watch this, is they're saying that she causes a strong negative reaction in people.
That's true, wouldn't you say?
Would you not say that Kamala Harris does create a strong negative reaction in a lot of people?
I feel that's true.
Both on her own team and obviously the other team.
And so the question is, is that a negative?
And I would say watch out for that.
Watch out for that.
Because the thing that makes you really care about anything is also an indicator of influence.
I would suggest that it's possible that the reason Republicans are so anti-Harris It's exactly because she's scary.
Scary in terms of she might have the goods.
She might be able to crank this up.
Whoever said, next topic, we're going to ban you forever.
I just don't like the negativity.
So here's what I would caution you.
Think of some people who generate really intense negatives.
AOC and President Trump.
Those two characters generate more negativity than maybe anybody you've seen lately.
But they're also two of the most successful people.
Is that a coincidence?
I would suggest it's not.
That that strong negative feeling you feel about any candidate is you being afraid of them in many cases.
And if you're afraid of them, it suggests they have power.
It suggests that you know they have power.
So the reason that you even care is that you think they can actually get something done, and it's not what you want done.
If you thought they were completely weak and ineffective, you would still make your jokes and you'd still take your sides, but you wouldn't care that much.
You wouldn't feel it.
Harris does have the X-Factor.
Sorry. From day one, and part of the reason that I predicted her in early 2018 is when I selected her from all the people that were, at least in the conversation, for running for president.
The reason I picked her out of the crowd is the same reason I picked Trump out of the crowd in 2015.
Same reason I picked AOC out of the crowd when everybody said she's a flash in the pan.
And I said, oh no, whatever you're seeing there is no flash in the pan.
That's real.
And there's going to be more of that, not less of it.
And here we are. AOC is an important national figure in no time at all.
So Harris has the same thing.
Maybe a lighter form.
I'm not sure she has the full wattage of either of the two I mentioned.
But she causes you to remember her.
And she causes you to look at the TV when she's on, and she causes you to feel something.
If you've got that stuff going for you, you can channel it eventually.
Now the way that AOC channeled her power, if you can call it that, is we assume she had a great advisor.
Have you not heard that? That she was actually selected by really skilled operators.
She was trained, and then she was guided through her tweets and her initial She may be operating on her own now, but we think that having expert guidance on top of that raw whatever that is she has is what made her what she is.
Likewise, Trump has this raw power, but in his case, he's had decades of practice honing it and using it, influencing talking in public.
So he was basically his own advisor, in a sense.
Trump just figured out how to control his power Over his experience.
And here's what to watch with Harris.
Watch what the world-class advisers on the Democrat side do with her.
She is not going to be the same candidate she was in the primaries.
And by the way, I predicted this when she dropped out of the primaries.
I said that she's going to come back...
Upgraded. That what you saw was version 1.0, and version 2.0 is going to look different, sound different, and act differently.
Is it different or differently in that context?
I always get those wrong. And I think you already saw it.
So the criticisms that I used to make is that she used to laugh too much at her own jokes, which makes her seem less confident and less of a leader.
So watch for her to be less confident Of a giggly about stupid things happening in our environment.
Because that just takes away from the whole presidential vibe.
100% chance.
That when she got to the level that she was being considered for vice president, that there were serious advisors that got involved for the first time.
Like the really high-end ones that tell you to do something and you say to yourself, I think that's totally wrong, but because you told me to do it, and I know you know what you're talking about, I'm going to give it a try.
You need somebody that strong of an advisor to cause somebody with that strong of a personality to actually behave differently.
It would be hard to do. So I think that she has now the top advisors.
And you also see this.
Do you know how she used to move when she talked?
She would move her shoulders and made her look unconfident.
She'd say, well, you know, I think the president is a big old baddie or whatever.
And as long as her shoulders were jumping around, she didn't look confident.
Watch this. You take her persona...
And you just give her enough lessons to bring it down to a confident smile, confident smile, and just a clear, clean presentation, and you've got a whole different candidate.
And she's dangerous.
If you think that she can't take out President Trump, you might be underestimating her.
Now, we haven't seen her in full action in this context.
It could be the first...
Two or three times we see her, it's so bad that we just go, okay, I guess she couldn't take instructions.
I guess she didn't learn anything.
I don't know that that's going to happen.
I think you're going to see a different candidate.
I think she'll be more serious, more focused, she'll have better energy, and I think she'll even dress differently.
I'll bet you'll see differences in everything from her makeup to her jewelry to her hairstyle, and that it will be the changes that are not just cosmetic, But let's say targeted for the look and the time and the purpose and the effect.
Alright. There's a photo of Joe Biden talking to Kamala on his computer and telling her that she's selected as if she didn't already know that.
The funny thing about this to me is that you see Joe Biden's desk.
So it looks like it's his personal desk.
And he has on his desk A Hagar the Horrible comic strip framed.
Now, if you didn't already have enough reason to vote against Joe Biden, let me say it again.
He has a Hagar the Horrible comic strip on his desk.
No Dilbert comic anywhere.
If you look on that whole desk, there's not a single Dilbert comic.
And if that's not disqualifying, I don't know what is.
Meanwhile, the Black Lives Matter co-founder...
I don't know how many founders or co-founders there were.
Three? Can anybody tell me?
How many co-founders does Black Lives Matter have?
But one of them, and I don't know their names, which is a clever thing they do.
They don't make the leaders famous.
Quick, tell me the name of one of the leaders of Black Lives Matter.
I think there was a woman...
Right? You don't even know who it is.
And I think that's intentional.
But one of the Black Lives Matter co-founders said that the looting that's been happening lately is reparations.
And you should see...
Somebody thought that telling me that I suck at cartoons would be a good thing to do here.
Goodbye. People who don't know that art is subjective...
So what do you think?
Is the looting reparations?
Would you agree with Black Lives Matter that the looting is reparations?
I say yes.
I would say the looting, it was reparations.
And now we're done with the reparations.
Because the reparations died with the looting.
So in a way, but for different reasons, I completely agree with the Black Lives Matter co-founder.
The looting was your reparations.
So if there was anybody who wasn't looting, but they also wanted some reparations, it didn't work out for you this time.
And probably never.
Because the looting, I think, in the minds of people who would have to decide that reparations was a good idea, i.e.
white people and people who are, well, white people and anybody who is not black, Would be the ones who would have to be convinced.
Because one assumes that the black community might be on board with this if it ever became serious, the reparations part.
But other people would have to be convinced.
And what has happened in the past month or two?
Well, Black Lives Matter went from a really good idea, you know, the idea that we should treat each other with the same respect.
I thought we already were.
Frankly, I didn't know it was a problem.
But if somebody says it was a problem, I'm totally on board with the philosophy.
But the organization itself, well, doesn't look so good.
The Black Lives Matter organization, by focusing on the lowest priority, which turned out to be based on the fake premise, because now we know the Michael Brown thing was a justified shooting, according to two separate investigations, state and federal.
And believe me, they were looking for a problem.
They were not looking to get this guy off.
Nobody was looking for that.
But that's how it turned out.
Turns out it was a justified shooting.
And now we know, of course, even the George Floyd thing, he was so full of fentanyl that unfortunately he was going to die no matter what.
Which doesn't absolve the cops, but it clearly wasn't any kind of race-related murder situation.
So now that Black Lives Matter is completely discredited, in my opinion...
By becoming associated with looting, saying things like looting is reparations, which I agree with, because now we're done with reparations forever.
It's off the table.
And I think also that by focusing on their smallest and a problem that's not even real, which is the police killing of black people.
It's not real in the sense that it's not worse than any other group.
And even if it were exactly what you thought it was, and it was more of a problem than it was for other groups, even if that were true, which it isn't, I think the part about stopping more often and harassing is definitely true.
But we don't know what's that.
Is that because of the neighborhood you're in?
Does a black police officer harass a black suspect more than a white woman would?
I don't even know if there's any difference.
But anyway, even if you assume the worst about the whole policing situation, It's still the smallest priority.
The biggest priority, by far, the one that changes everything, if you get it right, is education.
And that means the teachers' unions are the source of ongoing systemic racism.
So if the black community ever wanted to march against the teachers' union and actually guess something good, the ability to compete in schools and therefore improve, if they ever wanted to do that, the Republicans would line up And outnumber them.
If the black community wanted to work on their biggest problem, education, because if you get that right, you got your job, you got, you know, basically everything is better if you're making money, you're educated, you got a job, things are working out for you.
So you can't make racism go away, but you can certainly make yourself relatively immune to it, as Oprah has, for example.
Anyway, Black Lives Matter completely discredited, even though the idea is good.
All right. Let's talk about herd immunity, because I know you want to.
Let's talk about that.
I've got a little more data here, because the optimistic hope is that the reason Sweden has...
Something close to zero deaths now from coronavirus, ongoing deaths, is because we assume they reached herd immunity.
But if they did, it would suggest that it's easy to get there, and that maybe herd immunity is closer to 20% of the population, not 60.
Now, if that's true, and maybe it's because of this so-called T-cell immunity, Meaning that if you had some exposure to other types of coronaviruses, you might have a little residual immunity to this new one because it's got a lot in common.
And it might be enough for some people.
But I ask this question, well, are there other situations in which people pass that 20%?
And here are some examples and counterexamples.
Now, before you jump to the conclusion, say, Scott, You can't make any decision based on that thing you said.
That's where I am too.
So nothing I tell you next should suggest that you could make a decision based on it.
But I'll give you some context.
So the Diamond Princess, 19% of the people tested had coronavirus.
And so you say to yourself, okay, that's consistent with herd immunity being 20%-ish because they were all on this cruise ship together If it reached 19% and stopped, maybe that's because we got it in time, but maybe it's also because it was going to stop there anyway.
But what about the Argentine cruise ship in which 59% had it?
And so we've got one with 19% but one with 59.
Pretty different. Now the 59 is coincidentally right where we thought the top of herd immunity was.
But again, That doesn't mean anything.
It's one situation.
We don't know what happened after they knew they had it, how they quarantined, etc.
But what if, I'll just throw this out there, what if people on cruise lines don't travel alone?
What if they're always packed together with their family?
And what if one of a family of four got the coronavirus, but then they were quarantined with the three other members of their own family?
What happens to the three other members?
Probably going to get it, because they're in this little room with whatever kind of ventilation they've got on cruise ships, and if one of you has it, I don't know, your family's probably going to get it too.
So do we have a situation where you can't really tell because of the unique way that they handled quarantines?
I don't know. So I would say you can't tell anything about that, but I would add to the conversation that there is some notion That the higher your viral load, the more likely you're going to catch it.
So being around a lot of virus, more likely to get it than being around a normal amount.
And I would say that how much you're packed into a space, and what kind of ventilation you have, probably changes completely.
What it means to have herd levels.
So in other words, you might be able to reach herd at 20% in Sweden because people are kind of spaced out.
They have the option of spacing out.
Whereas if they're all packed into a prison or a cruise ship, maybe you don't get to herd until you're at 60% because there's just so much viral load.
It's just all packed in there.
There's nothing you can do.
Maybe. So in other words, so here's the hypothesis that is unproven, that if we have these T-cell immunities, meaning we haven't been specifically exposed to the virus, but we've been exposed to other ones that gives us some immunity, the thought is that there's some amount of viral load that would overcome whatever natural immunity you have.
So there's no such thing as just having some immunity, There's immunity at a certain level, and you could overwhelm that with enough virus.
That's the hypothesis.
How about inmates? We've got one prison that had nearly 70% were infected.
Again, maybe they're just all too close together, not enough sanitation.
Do you make anything of that?
I don't think you can.
A homeless shelter, there was one at 24%, another one at 36%.
Let me ask you this.
Do homeless people spend a lot of time in close proximity to each other?
Not so much, right?
The homeless people I see are pretty much loners.
Obviously, they're homeless families.
But wouldn't you say that the homeless are uniquely able to stay away from other people in a weird way?
I mean, if you looked at the homeless people in the street, they're not interacting with each other so much, are they?
I don't spend much time around that situation, so I don't know.
But it wouldn't surprise me if the homeless just have a natural distancing thing built into their situation.
So they're down at that 24% and 36% tested in two different shelters.
So we've got a French aircraft carrier, 60%.
It's pretty hard to get away from other people on an aircraft carrier, right?
You're packed into these little bunking places.
But a U.S. aircraft carrier had 17%.
Again, probably has to do with when they caught it, how early they caught it.
Probably doesn't tell you anything. Alright, so those are some examples.
So what we know, the only thing we learn from that, is that in these enclosed spaces, be they a prison or a cruise ship, you could have an infection anywhere from 20 to 70%.
So we know that.
But what we don't know is a big old country where you've got the option of spreading out if 20% or so could be the limit.
Now, if 20% herd immunity is not enough, we don't know what's happening in Sweden, do we?
How do you explain Sweden if, in fact, they didn't achieve herd immunity?
What is it, if it's not that?
Could it be vitamin D? Ah, ah, okay.
Suppose, because Sweden has the unique quality, that although they don't get enough sun to get the right kind of vitamin D, they know that, so it is normal to supplement.
So they have vitamin D like crazy in supplements, fish oil supplements, I guess.
So could it be that 20% of their community is weak enough for other reasons, comorbidities, age, whatever, That they're weakened, but as long as you're a normal, healthy person with vitamin D, maybe you just can't get it.
Maybe something like that.
So vitamin D could still be part of our answer.
It's not eliminated, but it's not confirmed either.
And I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out that way.
Now, what did I tell you about how President Trump's performance on the coronavirus would be compared...
By election day, I made the following prediction.
That those countries that had gotten good control of the coronavirus early, say your Germanys and your New Zealands, would have recurring infections and a second wave.
And as long as we don't know what stops this thing, as long as we don't know where herd immunity is, and I'm not sure we're all going to be Sweden, I predicted that Those who did well would have a second wave.
It would make the president's performance look better because the other people would look worse.
And all of those countries that people said, hey, look at this country.
Why can't we be more like them?
And the answer will be, their time is coming.
And it might happen before election day.
Somebody says hydroxychloroquine.
Well, I don't know.
I'm still at a 30% chance that hydroxychloroquine is a game changer.
And part of the reason is I just feel like I know by now.
I can't believe we could get to this point, having so much talk about it, so many studies, that we wouldn't just know by now.
And the fact that it's still up in the air And in fact, a lot of people leaning against it, I don't know by what percentage, just makes me think it couldn't possibly be as effective as the claims because it would just be so obvious by now.
But who knows?
But we do live in a world where the unusual can happen, so can't rule out anything.
