Episode 1101 Scott Adams: BBC Debunks the Joe Biden Race HOAX, Free Markets Can Solve Portland, Trump's Sister, FDA Corruption
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The Post Office HOAX
College tuition SCAM
President Trump calls out FDA for corruption
Portland "fight club" vacation tour packages
The "fine people" HOAX FUNNEL
President Trump's principles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best part of your whole day.
I'm talking about the entire 24 hours.
Yeah, this is it.
The best part.
Now I'm not saying the rest of your day will be all downhill.
I'm just saying this is the best part.
It might get the rest of it to a higher average than it would have been.
And all you need to participate, all you need is a what?
Cup or a mug or a glass?
Tank or chalice or stein?
Canteen jug or flask?
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called this simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go! I can feel a new therapeutic coming online that seems to be effective against coronavirus.
Yeah, that's what I feel.
And it's all because of the simultaneous sip.
I don't think that stuff happens on its own.
Alright, let's get into the news.
As you know, the investigation on the Russia collusion stuff and how that all started.
They interviewed, this happened a few days ago, they interviewed Brennan.
And Brennan was not a target.
So they were not talking to him as a target of the investigation.
However, smart people have clarified the following.
There's a reason you save some people for last.
Do you know what that reason is?
The reason you save some people in an investigation, the reason you save them for last, is that you're trying to trap them into lying because you found out all the truth from all the other people you've talked to.
So, if there's somebody that you've decided should be last, That means you've decided that they're in the target zone, shall we say, but not technically a target.
Because in order to be a target, you'd have to have some evidence against you.
But the interview with Brennan, the whole point of it was to get evidence against him, apparently, or to find out if there was none, I suppose, if you want to take the positive view of it.
So, watch for the clever weasel words around John Brennan, because he might be in trouble if he said anything that was conflicting with what they knew to be true.
But we don't know that, so we'll wait.
Here's a question I've had for the fake news.
I have to admit, I've had a real problem getting interested in the post office scandal, or lack of scandal, whatever it is.
And the reason is that I've mentioned this before.
My father worked for the post office for, I don't know, 30 years or whatever it was.
And I've heard so many post office stories in my life.
I don't have room in my brain for another post office story.
But for the benefit of the public, I cleared out a little space.
I forgot a few things that happened in fourth grade.
Just to make room for some more memories of the post office.
And I immediately came to this question.
I've been watching the news and trying to see how long it would take for the news to inform me about the most obvious question.
The one that should be at the top of your mind.
The only one that matters, really.
Which is, why do we think that having fewer postal Why is it that low turnout Which is what you might get if you were intentionally trying to degrade the post office so that voting by mail wasn't so good.
First of all, the first part of that, that if the mail service is not dependable, that will only affect Democrats.
So as I understand the argument from the Democrats, that if the mail doesn't look dependable, And that's one of, if not the only way to vote in your area, that you won't vote if you think the mail is not completely dependable, even though voting would certainly help no matter what.
Because at least there's a chance it would get delivered.
I would say even if there were massive mail fraud, even if that were true, Isn't there still a 98% chance your vote gets counted?
Because massive...
Imagine if there was a 2% fraud.
I don't think that's even possible.
It's a gigantic number.
But there's still a 98% chance your vote gets counted.
Worst case. And you're telling me that Democrats would look at that situation and say, you know, I was going to vote.
I was totally going to vote.
But now I see on CNN there's a 2% chance it might not go through or not get counted on time.
I guess I won't vote.
But the Republicans, weirdly, weirdly, they're watching the same news.
They may be watching a different network, but that news is telling them also that there might be some risk that their mailed vote wouldn't get counted.
But for reasons that are not explained by the fake news, the Republicans have a different opinion of it.
Like, 98% chance it'll be counted.
If it gets counted, that's good for me.
Why wouldn't I vote?
If there's a 98% chance it helps.
Wouldn't you do something that had a 98% chance it helps?
Well, apparently the thinking I so want to swear, but if I don't give you warning to it, I don't think it's fair, even though I do sometimes.
Trying to cut down. But the belief is that Democrats are so stupid, and this is their own opinion, by the way.
This is not my external critical opinion of Democrats.
I'm describing their own opinion of their own group.
That if there's only a 98% chance that something will make the world better, in their opinion, you know, a vote for Joe Biden, in their view, would make the world better.
If they only have a 98% chance, they're filling out a form and dropping it in their own mailbox, which you could do, because the mail will be picked up from your own mailbox, if you have a mailbox.
Not if you don't. And I'm thinking...
Are they calling their own people really stupid?
Because I don't know how else to interpret it.
If the Republicans think a 98% chance of something good is good enough to act, and the Democrats think a 98% chance of a good outcome is not good enough to act, on some average level, you know, it doesn't affect every person, of course, but on some average, isn't that Democrats calling their own voters incredibly dumb?
It's almost as if Democrats don't know how to do risk management.
Oh wait, they don't.
Consistently. It doesn't matter what topic you're looking at.
Democrats seem to have the same blind spot that permeates the entire party, which is they can see Let's say the cost of something, but not the benefit.
Or they can see the benefit of something, but they can't see the cost.
So they don't seem to be able to do the most basic risk management or even cost-benefit calculation.
And you don't see it any more clearly than in this mailbox thing that their own party believes a 98% chance of something working will not motivate their own base.
How do you explain that other than that they think they are stupid?
I mean, seriously, how do you explain it without saying the Democrats believe their own people are too stupid to know a 98% chance of something being good isn't good enough to try?
I don't know how to explain that.
What's the alternative other explanation for this?
Now, the New York Times had a story that I may have tweeted, I was going to, That, or maybe I didn't, that said that even the experts say it's not clear if voting by mail, even if there was some problem with it, meaning that people thought it wasn't easy or something.
The New York Times says it's not clear who that would help.
Because it used to be that the Republicans had the more educated people, they were more likely to vote by mail, but now that group seems to have migrated to the Democrats, blah, blah, blah.
But they did mention that there seemed to be more seniors among the Republicans who vote for Trump.
I think that's true.
And so seniors would presumably be a little more comfortable with mailing something, because they grew up their whole life mailing something.
But let me inject a thought to you that might make you laugh.
You ready? Would you agree that Democrats skew younger?
I think you'd agree, right?
More 20-somethings are Democrat, I think, by far.
I'm not positive of the ratio, but I think it's unbalanced that the young people are mostly Democrat.
Now, how many people under, let's say, the age of 25, and this is going to make you laugh, have ever mailed anything?
Think about it. Just think of the people you know personally.
Just think of anybody you know between 18 is voting age, right?
18 and 25.
How many people do you know under 25 who have ever, ever put a stamp on something, if it needed a stamp, and mailed it?
Can you think of anybody?
The young people literally don't know how to vote.
I would think that Trump would be all over this vote by mail because a big chunk of the Democrat base is going to say, how do you mail something?
Do I need to buy a stamp?
Do I need to put two addresses on it, like one big one and then one little one?
How does this mailing thing work?
Can't we have an app for that?
Because they're smart.
I'm not saying that they're not smart enough to figure stuff out, but your comfort with something will definitely determine whether you do more of it.
And I would think young people would be uncomfortable with mailing just because they don't do it.
All right. Colleges.
Have completely exposed themselves, and I don't think there's any going back.
Because a number of them are doing this bait-and-switch thing where they say, yeah, yeah, yeah, if you give us your full tuition, we'll probably almost certainly have classes in person.
Which is what you think you're paying for.
But, you know, if something comes up, if you students don't follow the rules and socially distance, well, we might have to send you home and then you'll do online learning and we'll keep your tuition.
Now, what are the odds that there is any college anywhere that will be able to keep its students from having parties?
Kind of zero. Kind of zero.
Because they're in college.
They're going to have parties.
They're not going to wear masks.
And they're going to spread the coronavirus.
So the college gets to say, well, you know, we did everything we could, but you darn students partied too hard.
Now the coronavirus is spreading.
You're going to have to go home and just pay us the same amount you were going to pay anyway.
Or don't get a college degree.
It's up to you. So I feel like the last bit of credibility in the college systems is being drained out of it.
And certainly this creates, I think it's creating a market opportunity for every alternative form of education that you couldn't have foreseen.
Because as long as colleges were still as, let's say, positive looking in our minds, as long as that was like the goal that if you could afford it and if you could get in and you wanted to go to college, as long as we were all oriented toward that being the thing we all wanted, for the kids that is, it was hard to create a market for an alternative.
But now that the credibility of college has just been demolished, suddenly the opportunity for alternative education pops up.
So you might see the free market fixing that.
That would be the ultimate. Amazingly, Trump called out his own FDA for corruption, I think, yesterday.
And this is one of the coolest things I've ever seen in government.
You know, if you ask...
When people say, how could you possibly support the orange man who's bad?
I always look for stuff like this.
Can you think of any other sitting president who would accuse his own FDA of corruption in a tweet?
Now, I'm using the word corruption, but let me read the tweet.
You can replace that with a word if you think there's a word that says it better.
So Trump actually tweeted this.
The deep state or whoever over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics.
In other words, to get volunteers to test.
And Trump goes on.
Obviously, they're hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd.
Must focus on speed and saving lives.
And then he adds the head of the FDA. And I'm thinking he's literally accusing the FDA of killing tens of thousands of Americans to rig the election.
Or at least change the results of the election.
Now, before the President of the United States decided to throw his own FDA under the bus, do you think he had enough information to do that?
Well, it's possible.
You'd want to hear what the FDA's side of the story is.
Is it possible that this is a little bit hyperbole?
That wouldn't be unusual.
Is it possible that the president is just using it as sort of a political talking point and maybe there's not much of a problem at the FDA? Maybe the FDA being conservative is exactly what you want them to be because you don't want them approving things that would be dangerous.
You'd want them to sort of err on the side of caution, right?
Wouldn't you want that? So I believe the FDA probably has an argument.
But let me pile on a little bit with our president.
I've been mentioning now for some time the lack of...
The lack of ability to use these cheap, at-home, over-the-counter test strips that apparently are easy to produce and do not require any kind of expensive machine to read the results.
You just sort of look at it.
It takes a few minutes.
You don't have to send it anywhere.
You just do it at home. It might cost you 25 cents per test.
It could cost you a dollar per test, but basically you could make a gazillion of them and everybody could test like crazy.
Now they won't catch the first day or so of an infection, but nothing else will either.
Because by the time you send away to a test to one of these other kinds of tests, it's been several days.
And you've already infected half the world.
So if you can simply find people who have a serious infection already, it's already been more than a day, get rid of all those people.
And by get rid of them, I mean quarantine, not get rid of them.
If you could just find out right away if you've had it for more than a day, you would pretty much get rid of the virus in maybe three weeks, basically.
And if it popped up, You could smack it down in probably a week, as long as everybody had access to these cheap strips, especially where there might be hotspots.
So I've said a number of times that if the FDA has a reason that those can't be approved, and I think part of the restriction is the FDA has a reporting requirement that anybody who tests positive, or maybe more than that, they have to report to the government.
Whereas these test strips, if you did it at home, people would not be reporting to the government, and therefore there might be some reporting deficiency there.
But that's not really much of a reason.
So here's my take.
The FDA failing to say yes or no on these test strips is such a gigantic red flag for corruption that you can't really ignore it anymore.
If you see your president calling out his own FDA for something that looks at least political, possibly incompetent, maybe fully corrupt, because the pharmaceutical companies are the ones who will hire these FDA people after they're done with the FDA, right? That's how it works.
They don't want anybody to be mad before they get that big job offer.
But on top of that, the fact that they won't give us a yes or no, and I'd be happy with a no.
If the FDA said, hey, a lot of people are asking us about these cheap over-the-counter paper-strip tests, we just want you to know that there is some risk here that we're looking into.
We'll get you an answer in a couple weeks.
If I heard that, I'd say, all right, you're on top of it.
That's exactly what I want my FDA to do.
I don't want them just to, you know, Approve it because the social media says we should.
You know, if few experts on social media are saying it's a good thing, you don't want the FDA to just bend to that, right?
You want them to look into it.
So if they tell me they've looked into it and there are reasons, I'll listen to those reasons, probably good ones.
If they say, give us two more weeks because we really need to understand this, I'll say, very good.
Very good FDA. I wish it were faster.
But two weeks, perfectly reasonable under the situation.
I'd say, that's an FDA who's doing its job.
If they were to approve it, they say, we've looked into it, the risk-reward, it looks good.
This is an unusual situation, so we're going to break some rules, and we're just going to approve that.
And then I would say, FDA, good job.
Good job. Looks like you made the right decision.
So I can see at least three situations that In which your FDA would demonstrate that they are a credible, useful organization without corruption of the type that you would notice anyway.
But they didn't do any of those three things as far as I know.
I believe they've chosen the fourth path, which is to not comment.
Now, if they're not commenting on the most important thing we can do, as far as we can tell, You know, without full confirmation.
That's got to be corruption.
And if it's not corruption, they could just tell us what the delay is.
We don't have to assume corruption if they could just tell us what it is.
Just inform us.
So without that information, I think you have to say that the FDA is no longer on your side in the way that you would like them to be.
You have to assume corruption.
And I would assume that Trump is right about something fishy going on over there.
Now again, I'm not saying they have to approve the test strips.
They just have to communicate.
That's it. It's a very low bar.
Just communicate. Where are you on this question?
That's it. It's a very easy thing to ask.
Do you think they're unaware that the public, or at least some part of it, the informed part, is asking about it?
Oh, they know.
Of course they know.
There's no chance they don't know about the topic.
There's something going on.
Likewise, some of you might remember, before I was talking about politics a lot, back in the Obama days, when Obama reversed himself on his opinion about dispensaries, marijuana dispensaries in California, and decided that he was going to put a marijuana dispensary guy in jail for 10 years,
and he'd reversed himself from his initial campaigning when he said, oh, the federal government isn't going to get into it, And then he reversed himself and he decided not only to get into it, but to jail people from my state who had a reasonable reason to believe they could start a business that was okay with the government because the president said he wasn't going to go after them.
And then he did. Exactly like that, I said this.
If he gives us a reason, I'll listen to it.
I might not agree with it, but I'm going to listen to a reason.
If Obama doesn't give you a reason...
For this radical change in opinion that is actually going to sentence somebody to jail in the United States, you have to assume that Obama is corrupt.
You have to assume that he's been bought off or bribed or coerced by something that's not in the benefit of the people.
He has never explained that reversal.
Never. By the way, if you want to fact check that, if he did, and I missed it, let me know.
But as far as I know, he never explained it.
And there isn't any other reason other than somebody got to him.
There was either money on the line, there was something political, a job after the presidency.
There was something on the line, and he wasn't telling us.
The fact that he didn't tell us, I said, was grounds for impeachment.
Not his opinion on it, That's not grounds for impeachment.
The fact that he wouldn't tell us why he reversed it, and that reversing wasn't trivial.
It meant somebody going to jail for 10 years in my state.
My state, he was going to put somebody in jail for 10 years because he bait and switched them.
That's impeachment. And by the way, all he had to do was say, well, I had a reason.
I changed my mind. I was thinking this.
Now I'm thinking that.
It wouldn't have taken much, and I would say, okay, I just disagree with you.
That's not impeachment.
But this FDA thing is just like that.
You've got to at least tell us.
You've got to tell us what you're thinking.
Otherwise, you have to assume that the FDA is corrupt in a serious way.
Corrupt to the point of killing tens of thousands of Americans who didn't need to die.
Probably for money.
Probably for money.
Now that has to be your working assumption, given the evidence of today.
Your president called them out.
That's not proof, right?
Because the president's failed the fact-checking before.
That's not proof. But the fact that they don't mention these test strips The longer they go, the more you have to assume it's just corrupt.
I've got questions about Portland.
I was enjoying watching the highlight clips from the big game last night in Portland that featured a number of right-leaning people, the Proud Boys, somebody called Trump's troops, and who knows who else was there, showed up to Do a pro-police thing,
which of course attracted all the Antifa anarchists and of course it turned into a little bit of street fighting and most of it was play acting with pepper spray and shields and stuff.
But there were some good highlights of a hundred pound Antifa person trying to punch one of the Proud Boys.
Now, let me ask you, what do you think happens when somebody who weighs a hundred pounds Punch is one of the Proud Boys.
Now, if you've seen the Proud Boys, they're not small individuals.
They're pretty big.
They're really big.
And I'm not going to promote them or side with them.
I don't know exactly what they believe in.
So I'm not pro Proud Boys or pro anybody else's life.
I don't know exactly what their deal is.
So I'm not pro or anti.
I just don't know what their deal is exactly.
And I know that it's been misreported, the Proud Boys especially.
So I don't know what's going on, but watching the video clip of the 100-pound Antifa anarchist punch one of the Proud Boys.
I think they were Proud Boys.
The guy who's getting punched basically just waves away the punch.
It's like this kind of a punch.
And the first guy just waves it away.
He just swipes the guy's arm away, basically.
But there was this 300 pounder proud boy who happened to be looking over his shoulder and he saw the 100 pound guy throw a punch at his buddy and the 300 pound guy just turns around And punches this guy full force in the face.
And I think to myself, and here's the funny part.
The Proud Boys were way outnumbered.
I don't know, probably 5 to 1 or more in terms of numbers.
This Proud Boy just punches this guy in the face so hard.
I've never even seen a punch that hard.
I mean, he put all 300 pounds behind it.
And it didn't start a bigger fight.
That was the funny part.
Because you'd think if that happened, it'd be on.
It'd be like, you know, full-on brawl.
But they watched this guy just take out their friend.
And I'm thinking, I think that one guy could have taken all of them.
Because he just has to punch each of them once in the face, and that's the end of that part of the fight.
And I was kind of hoping for some kind of a Jackie Chan...
Kind of a, you know, Enter the Dragon situation, Bruce Lee, where all of them would attack this one guy.
And it would have been a great video.
So if you're appalled that I'm treating this violence as a sport, you're welcome to your being appalled.
But it is a sport.
It has evolved into a sport.
There are two teams.
They wear uniforms.
They're trying to control territory.
They're trying to score points, you know, in terms of the public, in terms of, you know, politically.
And the police act as the referees, but they only whistle the really serious stuff so that, you know, they're not looking for the little fowls.
They're looking for the big stuff.
And everybody there volunteered.
All of the combatants were there because they wanted to.
And this made me wonder, how long will it be before the free market fixes this situation?
Because now that it's evolved from a law enforcement situation into a sporting event in which the law enforcement doesn't want to get too deeply involved, they'll call a foul and they'll do a little stuff, but basically it's no longer about the police.
As long as these right-wingers are coming in.
I thought, somebody's going to come up with a vacation package called Fight Club, and it will be specifically aimed at people who just like fighting.
Because for everybody who doesn't want to fight, every ten people who would not want to get in a fight, no matter what, you know, somebody that, for every ten, Who are completely peaceful and they won't even punch back if you punch them first?
There's at least one person who likes a fight.
I mean, you know that, right?
You know people in your life, they prefer the fight.
If the police are going to allow the fighting, it is effectively legal.
Once the free market senses an opportunity, That is both legal and underserved, you would expect they might pop up.
So I would not be surprised to see some kind of tour packages in which right-wing people are maybe given a little training, given their own shields and helmets and stuff, maybe a little mace, a little club, baseball bat or something, and you just buy a package and you get on a bus, so you're with lots of other people, you're not alone, and you just get enough people That you have numbers, so you're not badly outnumbered, and you just go there and fight.
And maybe not because you want to change political events.
Maybe you just like it.
Now, by analogy, people go on safaris.
Happens all the time.
People go on safaris and they hunt big game.
Big game that wasn't bothering them.
Do the people who go on safaris do it because they hate big animals?
No. No.
I don't understand what's in the head of anybody who would do big game hunting.
It's not my thing. But you can see that people like to go hurt stuff.
They like to hurt big animals.
They might like to get in a fight.
There's got to be a big market for people who would just want to go there and fight.
And in that way, the free market would eventually solve the problem.
Because the more people who go there just to fight, eventually if that crowd grows big enough, and I would say that the number would need to be about one-third of the Antifa people.
If you've got the people who came there to fight, assuming that they're big people, because that's who goes to fight, the people who know they can win, I think about one-third of Their size would be enough to clear out all of Antifa or to make it a lot less fun.
All right. The BBC World.
I don't know if BBC World is the same as...
They've got a lot of BBCs over there.
And not what you're thinking.
But the BBC, let's call it the British Broadcasting Corporation, they fact-checked the fine people hoax that Joe Biden did at his speech and...
They showed the transcript, specifically the part where the president says he's not talking about the neo-Nazis.
So even the BBC has now fact-checked it as false.
If you're keeping track, the PolitiFact did not give it a rating, but debunked it by showing the transcript.
So PolitiFact has fact-checked it as false.
They don't say it, but they fact-checked it as false.
Wikipedia, unless it's been updated, The BBC has fact-checked it as false.
Breitbart has fact-checked it as false.
At least some components of Fox News, Greg Gottfeld in particular, has fact-checked it as false.
But people are still clinging to it because our fake news is pretty darn effective.
And here's the thing that I tweeted just before I got on there.
A poll found that half of Hispanics were in favor of keeping Confederate statues.
Half. Half of Hispanic Americans were in favor of keeping Confederate statues.
Likewise, something like 20-some percent of black Americans were in favor of keeping Confederate statues.
The people who find out that the fine people hoax has been debunked, meaning that the president said, I'm not talking about those neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
They retreat down what I call the hoax funnel to this.
They say, okay, okay, maybe that's true.
He did call them out specifically.
But what about all those other people who were marching with them?
You can't march with them and still be a good person.
To which I say, I totally agree.
I totally agree. Who would disagree with that?
If somebody was marching with the neo-Nazis?
Obviously. Obviously they're with them, supporting them.
It doesn't mean that they necessarily pay dues to be a neo-Nazi.
It doesn't mean they identify themselves as white supremacists, necessarily.
But I would agree, fully, that if they were marching with them, they'd be bad people.
They'd be bad people.
Not fine people at all.
However, there is no reporting that any of the people that Trump was referring to, the so-called fine people, were marching.
They were just there.
And I, of course, have interviewed some people, as I told you.
So I know that there were lots of just milling around.
Some small part of them were marchers.
They got all the attention. But mostly it was people that you didn't know who was with who.
It was just lots of people.
Some of them were from the town.
They just walked over to find out what was going on.
Lots of different people for lots of different reasons.
And I would say to those who say, yeah, but nobody is a fine person if they support Confederate statues because the statues are racist.
To which I say, Joe Biden has now called half of Hispanics shitty people.
There's no other way to interpret it.
Because if half Hispanics are in favor of keeping the Confederate statues, and Joe Biden says you can't be a fine person, and the left says this, you can't be a fine person if you're on that side, he's basically called 50% of Hispanic Americans not fine people, as well as 20% of African Americans who support the statues.
So, Joe Biden, please explain why you think that Hispanics and black people, 20% of black people and half of Hispanics, Are shitty people.
I think you have to explain that.
The President says they're not.
The President says they're fine people.
Joe Biden says they're not.
Effectively. By inference.
So he's got to explain that.
The President has what he's calling a big announcement on therapeutics today.
Oh God, do I want to hear that.
Now, what do you expect is going to come out of that?
If the President has said there's a big announcement, presumably good news, on therapeutics, what do you think is the likely outcome of this?
Number one, that therapeutic is probably going to be a pharma product.
Do you agree? It's going to be a pharma product, meaning that there's somebody who's going to make a lot of money, probably.
If it turns out there's a study on hydroxychloroquine that it works, or some easily available drug and it works, I'm going to be pretty surprised!
I think it's going to be something expensive.
So that's the first thing. Second thing is, what is the anti-Trump press going to do if the science says it works?
What are they going to do?
I think they're going to say the science says it doesn't work.
What else could they do?
Because they've said that the president can't get this done, that the world is falling apart, only Joe Biden can save us.
What if, what if, this therapeutic actually is the big deal?
Somebody says probably vitamin D. I don't think so, because vitamin D is too inexpensive.
Something tells me, I don't think it's going to be remdesivir, because I feel like we know, I think we know that, and I don't think that would be worthy of an announcement.
It's going to be something that maybe wasn't on your radar.
I don't know exactly what it is.
But watch the problem it causes with the mainstream press.
When they don't know how to say, it will kill you.
If it doesn't.
It's going to be epic, if that's what it is.
Now, the other possibility is that it's not such a big deal.
And the president likes attention, so he's making it a big deal, but maybe it's not a big deal.
We'll find out. But I also love that there's no leak.
Have you noticed that?
There's no leak.
Why is there no link about what this announcement's going to be?
Have you ever heard of that? When was the last time we had something like this, where there's a big announcement, the country cares, and it's not already leaked?
How often does that happen?
Not too much, right? So, yeah, I don't think it's hydroxychloroquine.
That would be the ultimate simulation great script.
If it were, that would assume that there's some trial that we don't know about that went well.
But I don't know. I don't think that's going to be the case.
Anyway, we'll find out about that.
And let me say this about that.
There's also a story about Trump's sister.
She's in her 80s.
And she was recorded secretly by Trump's niece, Mary.
So Mary Trump is not looking good.
If you're secretly recording your relatives, you've got some explaining to do.
But apparently the sister of Trump said of Donald Trump that he has, quote, no principles and you can't trust him.
Now, does that ring true to you?
Does it ring true that he has no principles and you can't trust him?
Because I think to myself, I feel like I know his principles.
Don't you? So here are a few that seem obvious to me.
Does the president like the Constitution?
Is that a principle?
I think that obeying the Constitution is a principle.
That playing by the same rules, all playing by the same rules, that's a principle, right?
How about America?
Or patriotism?
Does the president have that as a principle?
Yes. Very much so.
How's that not a principle?
And he always has.
Nobody has suggested that Trump's love of America, the flag, the symbolism, the country, even his critics have not suggested that he only suddenly became patriotic.
He has a long history of pro-America that's so clear.
How's that not a principle?
That's pretty clear.
How about the sanctity of life?
Now, I don't weigh in on this opinion, so you're not looking at my opinion in any of this, but the president has said that the sanctity of life is important, innocent life at least, and he's anti-abortion.
How's that not a principle?
Right? How can you possibly say that's not a principle?
How about the principle of free markets and competition and trying hard to win and fighting hard to win and never quitting?
Are those principles?
Well, they're, I don't know, character, principles.
They're in there somewhere.
So here's my way of interpreting what Trump's sister said.
First of all, don't believe disgruntled employees and family members who have a beef.
You can't really get credibility from any of those groups.
So that's the first thing.
But here's how I see Trump.
I see he doesn't have artificial limits, meaning that unless something is illegal or impossible, it's on the table.
He says this all the time.
Are you considering a nuclear strike?
Never take it off the table.
Right? Are you going to question the result of the election?
I don't know. We'll wait to see what happens.
Always keeps his options open.
So do you want the person who closes their options because they've got some kind of principles?
That's exactly who I don't want for president.
I don't want the one who says, There's nothing we can do because we have this principle.
Here's a principle. Don't talk to dictators.
Right? What would President Trump's result with North Korea been if he had followed this little stupid principle that we don't talk to dictators?
It wouldn't have gone well.
But, you know, wherever North Korea is going, you would have to admit the temperature is down and we're at far less risk of any kind of war with North Korea.
It's way less because the president violated that little principle because he just didn't recognize it as important and it wasn't.
So you want the person who will do the thing that other people won't do.
Let's say dealing with dictators in, say, China or Russia.
Let's say China is my example.
Wouldn't you think that a principle would be you're either going to deal with them or you're going to completely shun them?
Wouldn't that be the principle?
It's like, okay, this country and this leader is bad, so we're just not going to deal with them.
That'd be a principle. Or they're good enough, they're imperfect, so we're going to deal with them and put up with the imperfection.
Trump picks neither of those.
Trump says, I'm going to respect the leaders, going to be nice as possible, I'm going to try to get a good deal.
Once I've determined that that can't happen, then we decouple.
That's what I want.
I want the one who says there's no artificial principle holding me back.
I do have these beliefs in America, the Constitution, sanctity of life, let's not have unnecessary wars.
Is that good enough for me?
Yes! Yes, that's good enough for me.
That's about as principled as I want any president.
I don't want him over-principled.
That person doesn't have options.
I want the president to have options.
Then how about this? You can't trust him.
Well, you can make up your own mind about, you know, what he has or has not done and whether you could trust him.
But wouldn't you say that one of the outcomes of this is that you also can't predict him?
And doesn't the president hold that out as one of his superpowers?
He does. He says it explicitly.
That the fact that he's unpredictable gives him advantages.
And it does.
So, the fact that he has a set of principles that are not the same as somebody else, because his is, you know, Constitution, America, competition, fight hard, win, you know, a sanctity of life, respect the flag, you know, police are important, military is important, you know, that's a lot of principles.
The fact that he doesn't have the ones that hold you back and limit your, not only limit your options, but limit your unpredictability.
I've said that there's no such thing as a perfect or even a good president.
There's no such thing as a good president.
There are only presidents who, and sometimes it's just Locke, are well suited for the tasks that happen to come up during the presidency.
I wanted a president who could deal with China.
Boom. Got it.
I wanted a president who could talk up the economy and make sure that even the unemployed had the best chance of getting a job.
Done. I wanted a president who wouldn't get us into a war for somebody else's profit.
Done. Alright?
Now, after those things are completed, after ISIS has been completed, Do you know why President Trump was able to defeat ISIS, at least territorially, when Obama had a little more trouble?
It's this principle thing.
Apparently Obama had some kind of a principle about the military had to check with the civilian leadership before they made a move on the battlefield.
And Trump thought, well, that's a bad principle.
Why don't we not do that?
And why don't we let the military take care of business?
And then they did. So Be open-minded about what kind of personality you need to solve what kind of problems.
I could easily believe that after two terms of Trump, that what the country needs more than a third term of a Trump person might be something different.
It might be that the times have changed.
You could easily imagine that the situation changes and what you need is an Andrew Yang.
Right? Because if the robots are taking over and technology is more important than other things, well, you need somebody who can understand that stuff.
You can easily imagine a Mark Cuban being the ideal president sometime in the future when the situation really requires that kind of a personality.
Does that mean that Mark Cuban would be the perfect president right now?
It doesn't mean that.
It means he might be the perfect president for some future set of situations.
Trump is really well suited for most of our situations.
I would say the coronavirus was not a perfect fit because that required a lot of empathy-sympathy stuff that he just doesn't do as well as some empathy people do.
But I don't think it changed much the performance.
It just changed that empathy part.
South Korea reports almost 400 new cases of COVID on Saturday, the highest single-day increase since March.
Remember I told you that all those countries that might be gloating about their early success might have some surprises coming.
Now, South Korea, to their credit, is doing a good job of tamping it down, and it probably won't get in a hand.
Probably won't.
But if you're comparing countries, I would ask you this.
Isn't the right comparison to imagine that the president of one of these countries that's doing well, New Zealand or South Korea, let's say, imagine that specific leader, the New Zealand president, just transports into the United States and is magically the president of the United States.
Would that person be able to solve COVID in the United States as quickly and easily as they could solve it in little New Zealand countries?
We're fairly well-controlled South Korea.
If you can answer that question, A, you're an idiot, because nobody knows.
You don't know how somebody else would have done in the job.
You don't know.
There's no way to know that.
Could have done worse. Could have done better.
You don't know. But to imagine that we can compare ourselves to other countries is just really not sophisticated thinking.
We can't.
It's not possible. Now the news will, the pundits will, but it's not rational.
Here's an update on the big fire in my area.
I'm on the boundaries of one of the biggest fires in California.
Parts of the area I'm living are already evacuating, or at least they're under an evacuation warning, I think.
And it is 10% controlled as of this morning.
10%. Biggest fire, heading right for my town, 10% controlled, not fun.
So we don't know where that's going to go, but I do think that that 10% is misleading, because I think they put up a stiff resistance when it starts hitting houses, and they probably don't try to put up too stiff a resistance when it's burning through the forest and the empty spaces.
So I think we'll see a good defense when it gets right up to my gate.
We'll see.
A funny story that isn't funny for the family, but Kellyanne Conway's daughter, who's 15 and she's on social media, and she's saying that she wants to be emancipated because she can't stand being in the family because her mom and she's saying that she wants to be emancipated because she can't stand being in the family because her mom works for
Now, if ever, and I feel bad for Kellyanne.
She has to deal with this.
But there's something fantastic about the family at the same time that maybe you wouldn't want this problem for yourself.
But I do love the fact that there's no soft-spoken person in the family.
Well, I don't know if they have other kids, but I love the fact that they're all a certain way, meaning that they're all fighters.
You know, if Kellyanne Conway's daughter doesn't get, like, she'll probably be one of the most successful people ever if she wants to be, because she's a fighter.
I kind of like that.
Anyway, I have a theory that is a crackpot theory.
You want to hear it? Crackpot theory, anybody?
You like your crackpot theories?
It goes like this.
The energy can't really ever disappear.
It can move, but it can't disappear.
Now, I'm going to be talking about energy in the human sense.
So have you been surprised that at least until last night with Portland, with this little bit of a few right-wing people showed up to do battle with Antifa, but I think they were doing it for fun, looked more like entertainment.
Have you been surprised at how little physical activity there has been from Republicans and conservatives pushing back on the Antifa and pushing back on really anything?
Have you noticed? I feel as if the Republican energy is going to come out on Election Day.
It feels like there's a whole bunch of Republican energy that's really, really pent up.
Not only because we're locked in our homes, but every day you turn on and you watch a city be destroyed, and you say to yourself, I want to do something about that.
But... Hold...
Hold. Not yet.
Hold. And I'm going to go with Newt Gingrich on this, who says that he's predicting maybe a more remarkable Trump landslide than we imagine.
He didn't say landslide, but I'll say big victory.
And he uses this This anecdote, this was Newt, said this.
You know, we have the mayor of Chicago announcing that she's going to have the police on her own personal street because she wants her family to be safe, but good luck to the rest of the city, Gingrich added.
Well, I think this stuff sinks in at a level of reality that even NBC News can't cover up.
So Newt has a perfect way of putting things, often, and I think he really nailed it.
There's something that conservatives are holding in.
And when it comes out, it's going to come out in filling out a ballot.
It's going to come out in voting, registering.
And I think that there, as I've said before, I think that the pollsters may have some surprises.
Now, I did see a tweet, and I would not put high credibility on this, Nor would I say it's necessarily false.
You can be the judge.
So there's a tweet that says a doctor had some internal polling from the Democrats showing that Biden was only up five in New York State.
Do you think that's true?
Because if Biden is only up five in New York State, New York State's in play.
What? Now, I'm kind of skeptical, kind of skeptical, but if you lived in New York State and you watched New York City get destroyed by Democrats, would you be immune to that?
Would you just say, eh, eh, moving on?
Or would you say, that's pretty close to home?
I feel like, and by the way, I'm from upstate New York, I feel like I know my upstate New Yorkers, and I They would not move until it was time for the kill shot.
And the kill shot is election day.
So I think that there are a lot of silent defectors from the Democratic side and that those silent defectors are storing their energy up.
And it's all going to come out on election day.
That's just my theory.
Stored energy theory.
All right. That is all I wanted to talk about today.
Somebody says in the comments that the internal polling must be visible because the Washington Post is testing out the 22nd Amendment.
I thought it was the 25th, but maybe you're talking about something else.
All right, well, we'll keep on Joe Biden.
I believe that the fine people hoax would be enough to take him out, but I think his own...
I think it's happening.
So I think Biden's going down.
I think the mystery will be if Kamala Harris tries to take the top spot one way or the other before actual election day.
