Episode 1103 Scott Adams: The RNC Persuasion Masterpiece, Biden's Satanic Coincidences, BLM Terrorism, Suburban Warning Shots
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Strong visual persuasion at RNC
President Trump, the "bodyguard of western civilization"
Telehealth legalization, freed hostages, McCloskey's
Homeowner fires a warning shot
Joe Biden and Satanic coincidences
What happens when China loses a billion jobs to robots?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And today is going to be I don't like to brag, but it's going to be the best coffee with Scott Adams since, I don't know, yesterday at least.
And what do you need to participate?
What do you need? Well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass.
You need a tanker, cellist, or stein.
You could use a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go! Well, if you can't tell from looking behind me, I am not in my house in California.
I've escaped to Arizona for a couple days.
The update on my house in California is that as of last night, it's off the danger zone.
So it looks like the fire department and all of their volunteers made a stand, but also the weather miraculously changed.
So if the weather forecast had gone as forecast with lots of dry lightning and lots of wind in the wrong direction, my house may have gone up in smoke.
It would have been happening right now, actually.
But, got a little text last night that says the wind changed and the conditions have softened and my house We'll not be burning down today.
Now, I want to give you a little vacation tip.
It's hard to take any kind of a vacation.
Arizona's kind of a free state, so we got to pop over here for a couple days.
And if you've ever arranged to have a massage, at the same time that your house May or may not be burning down.
I would recommend, and this is just sort of a travel tip, don't schedule a massage at approximately the same time as your house might be on fire.
Because those two activities, they're not entirely compatible.
It's hard to relax.
I changed my...
Yeah, all the pets are okay.
The house is fine.
And obviously I have somebody at the house watching it, so there was no danger for the pets.
I have changed my hotel accommodations, as you can see.
It's a little bit better than it was before.
Got a great view here today.
The first place...
The first place that we were staying, we always try to get a place that's got at least two bathrooms because we hate to overlap.
I like my privacy in my bathroom and it's just good to have two bathrooms.
So it's one of my only serious luxuries in life.
I'm not too big on collecting stuff, but I like to have two bathrooms when I travel.
It's where I'd like to spend my money.
And the other place had two bathrooms, but one of them was like a dog's shower.
I didn't realize that until I tried to take a shower in it.
And apparently it was just sort of for washing your dog.
So it wasn't exactly what I was hoping for.
But this place, quite good.
It's actually a house. It's a rented house.
Alright, let's talk about all the stuff.
All the stuff. Enough about me.
There's a big story about Jerry Falwell Jr.
In a sex scandal kind of situation.
And for some reason, this is national news.
Now, I don't know why.
Because I'm not going to repeat the details of the allegations.
But they don't involve any victims.
There's no victims.
There's nobody underage.
There's nobody who cheated.
There's nobody who lied.
There's nobody who broke a commandment.
But there's this little private story about Jerry Falwell Jr.
and his wife, and I'm thinking, who exactly thinks this should be national news?
I get that it's interesting, but making it national news?
That is just so wrong.
And if you're on the left, I would think you would be especially eager not to make this national news, because isn't a big part of the left's philosophy, and by the way, one that I buy into completely, That everybody's different.
You know, aren't we trying to get away from, you know, on the left anyway, trying to get away from everybody's fitting into one box?
You're either gay or you're either a man or a woman.
You know, isn't the whole idea of the left that you could be anywhere on the rainbow, anywhere on the spectrum, as long as you're not bothering anybody and breaking the law?
I thought that was their own philosophy.
So if the people on The right care about it, and I doubt it.
I don't know why they would care, because again, he didn't break a commandment, didn't break a law.
There are no victims.
There was nothing dishonest in any of the allegations.
So under those situations, why is this news?
It's disgusting, really.
Let's talk about the RNC convention.
I sometimes watch the big events after the fact so that I can see the highlight clips without seeing the texture of the entire thing.
The theory for this is that most voters also will not see the entire event.
What the voters will see is the highlight clips and whatever comes out of it.
So sometimes if I'm trying to evaluate how persuasive it is, I will skip the event and look at what highlights came out of it.
Because it's the highlights that will persuade or not persuade, and it's good to see them without being biased by the whole event, because the rest of the country is not going to be biased that way.
They'll be biased by the clips.
This also assumes that anybody who watches the entire event has already decided.
If you watch that whole event You're really into politics and you've already made up your mind a long time ago.
So here's what I took from the highlights.
The RNC is really good at visual persuasion.
Like, really good.
And I've never seen a better consistent example than how they paired up.
Now let me tell you all the things they did right.
Number one, I thought it was clever that they went second.
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it in 2016, it seems like the DNC, the Democrats, went second with their convention?
Do I have that wrong?
And that allowed them to label the RNC as dark.
So you remember, everybody says it was dark after Trump's first 2016 convention.
And this time the DNC went first, and so the Republicans immediately after the DNC, do you know what they said?
They said it was dark.
So the Republicans, and Trump actually used this too, cleverly got out there first and called the Democrat vision dark.
You all heard that, right?
And I laughed every time I heard it because what they were doing was Quite obviously, is they were softening up the message that they knew was going to come from the other way.
The Republicans knew in advance that no matter what they did, the Democrats were going to say, well, that's dark.
That's a dark vision.
And I think they don't have expert help this time.
In 2016, I said, I think Godzilla's helping them, because that word dark just sounds a little bit too well-designed, professional.
But they're reusing it.
It's four years later and they don't have a better play than saying it's dark.
So they signaled it from a mile away.
The Republicans co-opted it and said, you guys are dark.
We're not dark. You're dark.
And then, of course, after the Republican convention, you wake up and what did all the Democrats say about the Republican event?
It was dark. But doesn't it look stupid now?
Don't they look like clowns this time?
Because the whole dark thing is just so overused and didn't really fit the content.
The content really, I don't think, was dark at all.
So here's some pull quotes from stuff that the Trump supporters said.
And I want you to feel how visual this is, okay?
So I'll just give you some quotes that were important enough, I guess, that they were pulled out for Twitter and people were mentioning them.
So Charlie Kirk started out and he said this line, Trump is the bodyguard of Western civilization.
Now think about that.
If he had said he's the protector of Western civilization, that's just a concept.
Not bad, but not really good.
But he said he's the bodyguard.
The bodyguard.
That's visual.
You can see him standing there literally just guarding.
So that's Charlie Kirk opening.
I think he was the opening speech.
Then we get to Matt Gaetz.
This is not in any particular order.
And here's something Gaetz said.
He said, Donald Trump, like all builders, is a visionary.
Notice that vision is actually part of it.
So you're activating your visual part of your brain just by seeing that word.
That which is built in the mind is even more powerful than the brick and mortar that holds it together.
Wow! Isn't that good writing?
That's unusually good writing for a speech.
But think how visual that is.
He's saying what's built in the mind, you see the mind, and then it's more powerful than the brick and mortar, and then you see the building.
So you're seeing the vision of it in the mind, like a little movie playing in the mind.
Then you see another visual of the brick and mortar.
Very visual, hard to forget.
Gates went on to say, President Trump sometimes raises his voice and a ruckus.
Now, the first part of that, which I love, is he's reframing Trump's personality, if you will, into somebody who's necessary.
He's not somebody who's just making a lot of noise.
He's raising a...
He's raising his voice and raising a ruckus.
Ruckus is a good, unusual word.
It draws your attention to it, because people don't use ruckus too much.
So when you see a word, you know what it means, but you don't see it often in this context.
You pause. That's good persuasion.
Making you pause in the middle of somebody's sentence and think about it.
That's good stuff. It just nails you to the sentence.
And then Gates Warren, he says he knows what it takes to raise an army of patriots who love America and will protect her.
An army of patriots.
You can see them.
You can see them in your head, can't you?
You know what they look like.
They're an army of patriots.
Everybody has their own vision, so you're not thinking exactly the same thing.
Some of you are seeing a militia.
Some of you are seeing your neighbors.
They just happen to be armed.
Or unarmed. It doesn't have to be armed in this context.
Then Hershel Walker said...
This is less visual, but it was just well done.
So Hershel Walker apparently has been friends with Trump for decades.
And Hershel Walker said he's personally insulted that people would think he's had a decades-long relationship with someone who is a racist.
And then he said he's seen real racism and Donald Trump is not it.
And I thought... That is a really good way to frame that.
I don't know if Herschel Walker wrote his own speech.
He's a smart guy.
He probably did. But that is a really good way to phrase that.
He is personally insulted.
That's different. It's different than talking politics.
When you talk personally, people respond to it differently than when you're talking politics, concept, Republicans, blah, blah.
I thought that was really strong.
Then here's more visual persuasion from Donald Trump Jr.
And this one, I think, wins the evening.
If there's one you're going to remember, listen to Don Jr.'s quote.
He said, Joe Biden is basically the Loch Ness monster of the swamp.
For the past century, he's been lurking around in there.
Okay, that is really good writing.
Because it's funny.
Anything funny is going to get your attention and more likely will be quoted the next day.
Sure enough, he wrote it funny.
It was quoted the next day.
That's a home run in persuasion if you can get somebody to quote it.
But he has this Loch Ness monster, so visual.
You see the swamp, you see the Loch Ness monster, and then he uses the word lurking.
Again, perfect writing.
For persuasion. The word lurking is not normally a political word.
So words like ruckus and lurking and Loch Ness Monster, when you airdrop those into a political context, they're the things you remember because they don't belong.
It's like what thing doesn't belong with the other things?
Loch Ness Monster.
That doesn't belong there.
That's why you remember it.
It's perfect. Then how about Amy Johnson Ford, she was a nurse practitioner, and she was applauding Medicare and Medicaid coverage for telehealth.
Now think about that.
They bring a first responder.
So when a nurse shows up, you imagine the nurse working, right?
It's visual the moment a nurse shows up.
Similar with a military or a police officer or any first responder.
Anybody who is a front-line first responder type, they take you right to the scene.
If somebody shows up in uniform, let's say it's a firefighter, you see a firefighter in uniform, your brain is immediately transported to the fire.
You see a little movie in your head of that person doing their thing.
So having a nurse, just in general, is a good persuasion.
But she talked about the importance of telehealth.
Now telehealth is, I don't care what you say about what you do or do not like about President Trump.
With a stroke of a pen, President Trump removed a useless and destructive regulation that was costing the United States a lot.
And it was the restriction against telehealth, you know, having a video call with your doctor, That if the doctor was across state lines, there may have been some other restrictions there.
But Trump ran for office saying, I'm going to get rid of red tape.
There is no better example than getting rid of this telehealth restriction.
It is the ultimate example.
It never had a good reason.
Probably was just because of some, you know, doctor special interest group.
But he just wiped it away.
And who's complaining about it?
Who's on the other side saying, oh, I wish we didn't have telehealth?
Nobody. Nobody.
That's exactly what Trump promised.
When he said, I'm going to get rid of the red tape, he didn't say, I'm going to get rid of things that some people like and some people don't like.
He said, I'm going to get rid of stuff that's useless.
Shouldn't have been there. Got rid of the telehealth restriction.
Who's complaining? Nobody.
He actually launched an entire industry with a stroke of a pen.
Let's get rid of this and see what happens.
You've seen all the advertisements for new telehealth businesses.
They're just popping up like crazy.
And one of the most important changes in the country, and it was just one stroke of the pen.
And nobody else would have done that, I believe.
I don't believe a Democrat would have done that.
Don't know, but I don't believe it.
All right. Then, also visual.
Trump had, I guess it was a recorded package where he was talking to a number of freed hostages, which caused even the press and pundits who don't like Trump, when they saw him highlighting how many hostages he's freed from various regimes who had captured Americans, even his critics said, okay, we've got to give you that.
We've got to give you that.
When it comes to freeing hostages, American hostages, that's one thing we just have nothing bad to say about.
He did do that.
And apparently he's done it more aggressively and more successfully than anyone since Reagan, which is pretty awesome.
Now think of the power of this.
Now first of all, that was visual as well, because the people who had been hostages in unfriendly countries were sitting in the White House.
They're sitting in the White House with the President who freed them.
That is visual.
That hits you right in the feels.
And here's the important part.
You know how important it is in the military when the military has this rule that they don't leave anybody behind.
You know, if you're dead, you're wounded, we're coming for you.
And even if we get killed, coming for you.
We're coming for you. So if you're part of that, you know that you're always part of it.
You're not the person who got left on the battlefield.
You're still part of it.
No matter how separated you are, you don't have to wonder if they're coming for you.
If you're in the military, And you're missing?
You don't have to wonder if they're looking for you.
They're looking for you, right?
So the president has created this similar kind of thing with the hostages.
He's made it clear that he'll burn down your whole damn country if you don't let them loose.
And I think he makes, it looks like he makes the threat.
Look real. Now imagine you are putting yourself in the mind of somebody in another country and you get picked up by an unfriendly regime and you're jailed.
You're all alone.
You're all alone in a prison cell in a foreign unfriendly country.
What did you think when Obama was president?
You thought, I might get out.
He might care.
He might not.
Right? That's what you think.
You would hope he was trying to get you out, but you wouldn't have a lot of certainty about it.
Now imagine that President Trump is in the second term.
Second term. Second term, right?
And you get picked up by another country, and you're all alone in a jail.
What do you know? Here's what you know.
That whole damn country is going to burn down if they don't let you out.
He will burn down the whole country, figuratively speaking.
I mean, he will take their economy out.
He'll take their diplomats out.
He will ruin them if they don't let you.
And you're going to know that.
You're going to be sitting all alone in some cell in some foreign country, and you're going to sit there knowing that your president is dismantling that frickin' country until they let you out.
That's powerful. Here's some more stuff.
The McCloskeys were featured.
Of course, that was brilliant casting because they are visual.
Again, there's nothing more visual than the McCloskeys holding their guns, protecting their territory, their home.
That was great. Now compare that to what the Democrats offer.
You saw spectacular visual excellence.
If you compare that to what...
And the visual part, by the way, was often in your mind.
The visual part wasn't just what you saw on the screen.
So what the Republicans did right, if I can put this in a tighter package, what the Republicans did right is since...
The recorded kind of non-live audience situation removes the visual and, I don't know, kinesthetic, auditory...
It takes all that stuff away because there's no live audience.
They replaced it with mental visions.
Think about that.
They couldn't give you so much on the screen because of the limitations of coronavirus.
So instead, they made you think the movies.
When the McCloskeys got up, it was, you know, because there's no live audience and stuff, ordinarily it would be kind of a dead segment.
But because you remember them, you imagine them, you see them with their weapons, it's a movie.
So somehow, the Republicans managed to show movies while nothing was on the screen, except people talking.
That Ladies and gentlemen, is good, good production.
So whoever produced it, you know, if in fact they were encouraging everybody to speak visually, oh my god, that's good.
That's like as good as you can get for the limitations that were imposed.
Now look at one New York Times political reporter.
This would be a counter Or a criticism of the RNC event last night.
I'm not even going to give his name.
It's not worth it. But he's an anti-Trumper, it looks like.
And he says that Vernon Jones quickly goes to this.
Quote, the Democratic Party does not want black people to leave their mental plantations.
So what the Democrats have for a complaint is sarcasm.
No reason. It's just eye-rolling.
Oh, there they go again.
Complaining about black people being not well served by the Democrats.
And I'm thinking, that's all you have?
I would expect something more like a counter-argument.
If they have no counter-argument, they just give you sarcasm and eye-rolling.
It's like, looks like the Republicans are complaining because the cities are burning down again.
Those old complaints about...
It's just the same old thing from those Republicans.
You're burning our cities.
You're burning our cities. I'm thinking, you're going to have to do better than sarcasm.
Because the Republicans are just bulldozing you right now.
This is not a fair fight at this moment.
The Republicans have like this army of bulldozers coming at you, and the Democrats are responding to an army of bulldozers with eye-rolling.
There they go again.
That's typical.
That's it. They got nothing.
All right. So, We've got one side in the political spectrum is opposed to burning our own cities.
That would be the Republicans, if you're paying attention.
The Democrats appear to be on the side of the people who are burning the cities.
I don't think that plays very well.
Burning your own cities Putting your own people out of work doesn't feel like a good political thing to side with.
And yet, I was seeing a tweet from Joel Pollack, and he was mentioning that Biden did not condemn the rioting and stuff of last night.
And I'm thinking, you need to condemn that, or you are not even close to being qualified to be the leader of this country.
If you can't condemn setting on fire the stores of innocent people, And breaking cars and setting things on fire.
If you can't condemn that, you are not qualified.
But worse. We'll get to worse in a moment.
Did you see the video of the homeowner, I think it was in Milwaukee, who, when the crowds came near his home, or their home, in the suburbs, he fired a warning shot.
Did you see that? So, I guess it was a Black Lives Matter...
Riot slash protest, more like a riot, I guess, that came into this guy's neighborhood.
He walks outside with some kind of a weapon and just fires off a warning round.
And then you watch everybody scurry back into their cars.
They're like, all right, run, run, he's got a gun, he's got a gun.
And I thought to myself, what is the law on warning shots?
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
I imagine it. It varies by state.
So if you're in Wisconsin and you're in a dangerous situation, you're a law-abiding, let's say it's a legally owned gun, and you're on your own property, is it legal to fire a warning shot?
Let's say the warning shot is nowhere near the people.
Let's say you, I don't know, is it dangerous to shoot it in the air?
Because that bullet's got to come down somewhere, right?
So it might be illegal to shoot in the air.
I don't know if he shot in the air.
He could have shot, you know, he might have just shot his own lawn just to make a point.
So what exactly is legal?
Because I need to know that.
Because I would fire a warning shot if my house was being at risk.
And so somebody says a warning shot is illegal.
But I'd really like a ruling on that.
Yeah, because wouldn't it matter how much danger you're in?
Because I would think that if you're in imminent danger, a warning shot would be the preferred method versus shooting at the people who are threatening you.
So I guess it depends.
Yeah, it's obviously unsafe to fire in the air, so I would assume that's illegal.
So somebody says it's illegal to discharge a firearm in most places, but what if it's self-defense?
You know, does a warning shot fit under self-defense?
Alright, I have questions on that.
Get back to me on that. Now, here's something that's caught my attention and I can't release on it.
As you know, I'm not a believer in any kind of religious anything, but I can't help Noticing how many satanic coincidences there are with the Joe Biden campaign.
And they just have to be mentioned.
Now again, I'm not a believer, but it's becoming a weird coincidence of how many things look satanic.
For example, Joe Biden is in favor of what he said, bringing the light to the darkness.
And what is happening as he's speaking?
As he's speaking and saying, I will bring the light to the darkness, cities are actually on fire.
California is on fire.
I'm in Arizona, and I'm watching the entire valley is full of smoke because some part of the Phoenix area is on fire.
So, if you were Satan, wouldn't you expect that Satan would speak in terms which are true but misleading?
Meaning, he will bring you the light, but there's a catch.
It's fire. And it's burning your stuff.
That's exactly what Satan would say if Satan existed.
Now, I'm not saying that Joe Biden is possessed by Satan.
I'm just saying it would look exactly like this.
Now, are there any other clues?
Well, how many people or entities do you know who prefer to live underground?
I can think of Satan living in hell.
And who would be another person who prefers to live underground?
Could it be basement-dwelling Biden?
I only know two people who are famous for living underground.
Can you think of even a third one?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
So, but that could be a coincidence, right?
I mean, you know, There are coincidences.
So if there was anything to this satanic thing, you would see lots of little hints.
Because don't they say that Satan, his biggest trick is telling you he doesn't exist?
So he would be hiding in plain sight.
But there would be lots of clues if you were not blinded by The satanic influences.
For example, what is Joe Biden's slogan?
Build back better.
Build back better.
BBB. If you were going to imagine 666 and you wanted to show it to people and disguise it at the same time, can you think of any letter that the numeral 6 would fit inside completely?
Only capital B. Capital B is the only letter that you could put a 6 on the inside of it and it would be concealed.
If you put a 6 over the number 1, you'd say, hey, why'd you write a 6 over the number 1?
It would be obvious. But you could hide a 6 in a capital B. Could be a coincidence.
How about the name Joe Biden?
Well, there's no six, six, six there, right?
So, Joe is, that's, you know, three letters.
Biden is five, you know, so there's no symbolism there.
Except I was looking at it a little bit closer, and do you know if you took the capital letter J, just imagine the capital letter J in your mind.
Now think of the next letter in Joe.
It's an O. Now just move in your mind the O to the left until it's on top of the J. It's a backward 6.
So that's the J and the O in the form of backward 6.
Now suppose the next letter is the lowercase e.
What does a lowercase e look like if you turn it upside down?
Well, it looks like a 6.
So you've got the J and the O together.
If you combine them, it looks like a backward 6.
You've got this lowercase e that looks like an upside-down six, but that's just two sixes.
Six-six wouldn't mean anything, right?
But the next letter is capital B for Biden.
And capital B is where you hide your six.
So even J-O-E-B is six-six-six.
But then you say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, you can find a pattern in anything.
How do you explain the rest of the word Biden?
Like It's easy if you just cherry-pick.
If you just cherry-pick, you know, you can get that.
But what is left of the word Biden?
If you take out the B, because that's where the 6 is hiding, what's left of the word Biden?
Are you ready for this?
I-D-E-N. I-D-E-N. Identity.
666 Identity.
That's what Joe Biden's name actually is.
666 Identity.
Now you say to yourself, Scott, you could pick any complicated situation and you could find all these random patterns and it's been proven a million times.
And I say, yeah. I agree.
I'm not saying that he's possessed by Satan.
I'm just saying there are a lot of coincidences.
So let's look at Kamala Harris, for example.
Kamala Harris, you'd be looking for the same sort of thing.
So how many letters are there in Kamala?
K-A-M-A-L-A. Well, six.
But what are the odds that that means anything?
How many letters in Harris?
H-A-R-R-I-S. Six.
Alright. But that's just two sixes, right?
Two sixes means nothing, and that's just a coincidence.
What is she running for?
Vice President of the United States.
So, Kamala Harris, Vice President of the United States, is three sixes.
Is that a coincidence?
Might be. Could be.
So there is one candidate, Joe Biden, who has a coincidental association with the number 666 in a variety of ways.
He lives underground exactly like Satan, and he talks exactly like Satan, telling you he'll bring you good news, but it's really a trick of language that it's bad news.
Is he bringing you the light?
Yes, your house is going to burn down.
You're welcome for all the light.
So, I'm just putting that out there.
As I said, I'm not a believer, so I don't believe in either religion or Satan.
I'm just pointing out there's a lot of coincidences going on.
That's all. I've got a final thought to you for leaving you today.
And it goes like this.
What happens when When a billion Chinese are put out of work by American robots.
Because... I'm seeing a lot of you are getting into the looking for clues on the Biden campaign.
You're going to find a lot more of them when you start looking.
But it seems to me that the future looks like this.
The US is wisely decoupling from China and pulling back manufacturing as quickly as it can.
And eventually our robots will be replacing jobs in the United States, but at least we'll have a big robot business.
Whoever owns the robots will be getting rich.
So there might be something producing money that if you taxed or had a UBI or something, we could get by.
But what happens in China?
What happens in China when they lose a billion jobs to robots?
Because they can't make stuff for other countries, because we can do that.
Our robots will be more efficient than their humans.
So if we replace low-cost labor with American robots, America's going to be looking pretty good.
But China's going to have a really big problem.
Because even if they try to make robots for themselves, and of course they will, and even if they try to use them, all they're going to be doing is putting a million Chinese on a business, or a billion, on a work.
So I don't know if China can go crazy with robots the way that we can in the United States.
So my prediction is that China is doomed.
They're largely doomed.
And I think technology is going to be the cause of that.
And decoupling from them so that we can keep our intellectual property and our technology with us, the United States, is probably one of the most important things that will ever happen in the United States.
In the history, maybe in the history of humankind, it will be one of the most important decisions.
Which candidate will guarantee that we continue our decoupling with China?
It's not Biden. Biden's been very clear that's not his goal.
Trump has been very clear that if we don't get a lot more than what we're getting from China, and we're not going to, we're not going to get anything we want from China, that he'll decouple.
And he will. He will do it.
So, I think China has got a lot of problems coming, and it's going to be robots that take them out.
All right. Somebody says there's no light in Biden's eyes.
Well, he's very squinty.
I call him angry, squinty, caring Joe.
The caring being the part we can't be sure about, but he tells us that.