Episode 1127 Scott Adams: Patriotic Education, Biden's Lying Accelerates, Expert Advice, Biden Acts Coherent for Minutes in a Row
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
TikTok blocked by Trump...would Biden have done that?
The mask magic trick
Joe Biden, the gatling gun of lies
Promoting patriotic education
3 COVID19 things we need to know if true
Olivia Troye, disillusioned ex-Pence Aide
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 you, lucky viewer, you came to the right place at the right time.
Unless you're watching this on replay.
In which case, the delayed simultaneous sip.
Some would call it the asynchronous sip.
But that's just them.
It's still just as good.
But you know you need something to get this going, right?
It doesn't happen by itself, no.
You can't do the simultaneous sip unless you have a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
And fill it with your favorite liquid.
I'm partial to 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 right now.
Go! That's some good sipping right there.
I hope it was good on your end too.
Alright, let's talk about all the stuff that's happening.
A Rasmussen poll is teasing us today, and I think you'll get the official answer in an hour or so, or maybe two hours.
It looks like the president's approval level is going to be impressive.
I think you're going to like it.
I can't tell you what it is, but Rasmussen says you're going to like it if you're a Trump supporter.
All right. So, the Trump administration announced that they're going ahead with their planned and scheduled turndown of the Chinese app TikTok and also WeChat, I guess. And they had already announced that if something didn't happen by this date, which is Sunday, I guess, that they'll just stop the downloads and start blocking these apps.
Now, let me ask you this.
Would Joe Biden have done this?
Do you feel any chance that Joe Biden would have blocked TikTok?
And I don't know if anybody's asked him, so I asked on Twitter, has anybody asked Joe Biden, would you block TikTok if you were president?
Would you stop WeChat?
I'd love to hear his answer on that, because I think he'd have a little trouble answering it, being...
Being relatively more pro-China than Trump is.
You know, and I gotta say, I've said this a number of times, and every time you see another example of it, it strengthens the point.
Trump is bad at doing easy stuff.
Easy stuff being anything that Joe Biden can do.
If Joe Biden is capable of doing it, that would be in the category of easy stuff.
In other words, showing up Reading from a teleprompter and not getting everybody mad.
So Trump likes to provoke people, so he doesn't do the easy stuff well.
But the impossible stuff, peace in the Middle East, shaking hands with Kim Jong-un, moving out of China, decoupling from China, these are things which you would have thought were kind of impossible, but he doesn't.
And I would say that this banning TikTok, I actually can't even imagine another president doing it.
I can imagine another president complaining, but I can't see anybody just, you know, whacking the most popular app among children in the United States and just saying, you know, yeah, I know you love it.
I know you really like this, kids.
And goodbye. Just get rid of it.
I just love that.
It's so decisive.
It doesn't seem like it's real.
All right. I've asked on Twitter and waiting to see the responses.
Who can give me the most persuasive data, you know, a source, a link or something, for whether masks work or don't work?
And I can't tell you how unhappy I am that I'm asking this question in September.
Because this was sort of a January-ish, February question, right?
Do masks work?
How is it we don't know that?
Now, of course, most of you are saying, Scott, we do know that.
We do know that.
It's the most known thing in the world.
And then half of you will say, yes, we know it.
They work. And then the other half of you are saying, Scott, It's the most well-known thing in the world.
It's been debunked a thousand times.
They don't work.
I would have thought by now that an independent-minded person, at least as much as I can muster, would be able to look at those two arguments and come to some kind of a conclusion based on the data.
I have my own opinion based on my own thinking, but I should be able to look at the sources and say, oh, okay, these are good ones and these are bad ones.
Or it's ambiguous or something.
But instead, there's a little magic trick that people are doing to themselves to fool themselves.
It goes like this.
If you think you saw a lab test that says masks don't work, you didn't see anything.
You didn't see anything. A lab cannot test whether these work for the coronavirus.
If you think a lab test, which maybe shows that the virus is smaller than the The holes in the mask or it shows that the air comes out the side.
If you think that kind of test tells you something, you're really wrong.
Those are non-credible tests.
And here's my argument.
If I'm talking to you from, let's say, four feet away, without a mask, my mouth cannon is shooting my virus directly at you in one street.
So I'm basically just dosing you with virus if I have the virus.
Compared to, I'm wearing a mask that laboratory tests say, hey, those masks are letting stuff out the side.
Is the virus that I'm sending as a cannon directly into the mouth of the person I'm talking to?
Because when you talk to somebody, you literally face your mouth at their mouth.
Right? That's the most common way you talk to somebody, face to face, mouth to mouth.
Are you telling me that the same amount of viral...
Because it does matter how much you get.
We're not talking about whether one virus gets through because it makes a big difference if you get a big viral load or a small one.
Are you telling me the viral load is the same if it comes out the side as if I can and shoot it right into your mouth?
If you can tell me that's true because you studied it in a laboratory, I'm just going to say you don't know how things work.
You can't study that in the laboratory.
It's never been studied.
Common sense tells you that friction works every time.
It's hard to imagine where friction doesn't work, at least a little bit.
Now, here's the evidence that I would take to be reliable.
If you take any one country and say, hey, This one country either did or did not use masks, and they did or did not get a good result.
Useless. Completely useless.
Alright? One country doesn't tell you anything.
A bunch of countries, if you could collect a basket of countries, they had maybe a lot of other differences, but the one thing they all had in common with this basket was that they used masks and they were really dedicated about it.
Could you compare that to the people who had lots of other things that are different, but the one thing that was common is they didn't use masks.
Just see how they did. I would consider that beginning to be credible.
If you can't show me that link, you're not in the conversation.
And I'm not in the conversation either, because I've never seen that evidence.
Of all the dumbass graphs and bad statistics and stupid data that I've seen on Twitter, and it's a lot, Why have I never once, not even once, seen anybody present something that said, here are the countries that use masks well, here are the ones that didn't, how they do compare to each other.
Why have I never seen that?
Isn't that the most important piece of data?
And nobody can collect that data?
It's the most obvious thing.
Somebody says there's no cannon coming into their mouth.
Well, maybe there is.
You just don't know it.
So, this whole mask thing really shows how bad humans are at understanding anything logical or rational.
And I'm telling you, I don't understand.
I've got this gigantic hole, but I feel like we all do.
Alright, let me give you an update on my smart Democrat friend.
I give you updates as I, every day we go back and forth, and I'm chipping away at him to try to make his Trump derangement syndrome a little bit less.
And I have successfully moved him from the following position, where he used to say, Trump is a big old serial liar, and he lies and he lies and he lies, and that's why I like Joe Biden, because he's not like that.
So every time Joe Biden lies, and according to Joel Pollack, he counted, I guess in the town hall last night, there was one answer, just one answer that Biden gave, which included five lies in one answer.
So Biden is sort of like a gatling gun of lies at this point because all of his campaign ads are lies.
He just did a public service thing where he spread the fine people hoax again to a Jewish audience.
I mean, just the worst thing you could possibly do as a human.
It's not even just the worst thing you could do as a candidate.
What Joe Biden is doing by spreading the fine people hoax is one of the worst things you could do As a human, just as a human, there's nothing that Trump has ever done that's in that class.
And Trump's done some doozies, right?
Trump's insulted some people.
You know the list, right?
Nobody is unaware of what Trump's alleged and actual offenses are.
But Biden, I mean, that's the worst thing I've ever seen in public.
I've never seen any public figure Let me think about this.
We'll just say presidents.
Name any president who's done something worse than spread the fine people hoax repeatedly during a time when the country is divided.
You'd say, oh, what about Nixon and Watergate?
And I would say, not even close.
Not even close.
Carl Bernstein, can you go over here?
No, I guess you don't work on this side.
He only does it when it's bad for Trump.
But if you were being even a little bit objective, Watergate was sort of a bad thing that maybe had no real impact on the country in the end, except for the president left.
But the impact of the fine people hoax is it's like pouring acid on a baby.
It's just the worst thing you could ever imagine.
Get that image out of your head.
So, I've convinced my smart Democrat friend that his original position, that Biden was a truth-teller, roughly speaking, and Trump was a big old liar, is closer to two people in a political contest.
They're just both lying all the time.
If you want to tell me that Trump only tells the truth in his campaign ads, I would say, well, I don't think you know what a campaign ad is.
A campaign ad in 2020 doesn't try to tell the truth.
That's not even slightly, you know, on the table as something anybody needs to do.
And it's not just the president, it's just anybody running for office.
So, apparently, as long as it's legal to lie in a campaign ad, people have figured out it's just easier to shade the truth than it is to tell the real truth.
Alright. The President did something, I guess yesterday, that might be one of the most important things he'll ever do.
And it will get the least amount...
What did somebody say?
The birth certificate? No, the birth certificate...
Let me divulge.
I think there's somebody here who's trying to argue...
That Trump claiming the birther thing about Obama might be bad as the fine people hoax.
Here's the difference.
And it's a big, big difference.
The birther thing had nothing to do with race.
The only race that was injected into that was from the media and from the Democrats.
The Democrats are responsible for the birther thing because, let me clarify, Trump is, of course, responsible for raising the issue.
But he never raised it as a racial issue.
It's the same issue he would have, you know he would have, because he did the same thing with Ted Cruz.
You know he would have raised the same issue if Hillary Clinton had any irregularity on her birth certificate.
There's nobody alive who can tell me with a straight face, you know, if Hillary Clinton had been in that situation with any kind of question that you could make about the I don't think Trump would have mentioned that because she's white.
Nobody believes that.
The entire racial component of birtherism is an invention of the press and the enemies of Republicans.
Now, were there Republicans who were thinking, ha ha ha, it's because he's black?
I doubt it.
I doubt it. Have you met...
I've spent a lot of time with Republicans the last several years talking about politics and stuff.
A lot of time. And a lot of it is private.
And people will tell me things that they won't say out loud.
And people will tell me even just horrible thoughts that they would never let anybody hear.
I hear everything. Because people kind of trust me not to judge them, which is true.
I tend not to judge people in person.
Or any other time, usually.
But... Alright, I was just looking at your comments and it's throwing me off here.
Alright, so the point is that there's nothing worse than the fine people hoax.
And I would argue that the Democrats are the ones who turned the birther thing racial.
That wasn't Trump. So Trump has signed this thing, the...
It's the executive order for a patriotic to create a national commission to promote patriotic education.
And this is somewhat a replacement for or at least a counter to the so-called 1619 project which tried to reframe history through the lens of slavery.
Now, I happen to think that The 1619 Project could have been really good.
If it had been executed correctly, I would say that would have been a plus.
Our kids should be educated to know what World War II was.
They should know that the Holocaust happened.
They should know slavery.
They should know the details about it.
It was a good idea.
But the way it was actually going, it just turned into a racist nightmare, which would destroy the country.
So I've said that the way we train our kids is the operating system for the country.
So the way you program children, it becomes their operating system, and they can't run any other apps unless they get that right.
If you don't get the children brainwashed, I like to say, because I want to make sure you know exactly what I'm talking about, brainwashed.
If you don't brainwash children, you're just giving up your future.
Because there's no alternative to it.
You don't let children raise themselves.
That's not a thing, right?
You can't let children say, you know, I was going to raise you and give you some values, but I think I'll just let you work it out.
Just do it on your own. We know what happens when that happens.
So, When President Trump signed this executive order to look into...
I guess the National Commission will come up with proposals.
I don't know what's going to come out of it.
But let's say that this is productive and it produces patriotic education.
I would say that's one of the most important things that this president will accomplish in his entire terms.
And I don't think it'll ever get any attention.
Because only people like me who see the world in terms of persuasion and operating systems, etc., you'd have to have a certain filter on life to know that this is the most important thing that this president will ever do.
I think so. I think it's more important...
Well, you know, anything short of avoiding, I guess, nuclear war, this is probably the most important thing.
And I don't think this would have happened under Joe Biden.
Do you? Do you think that Joe Biden would have instituted some kind of patriotic education?
Or would he have continued pushing even harder on the 1619 kind of racist framework?
I think he would have gone full racist, as is the current situation.
All right. Imagine being the author of that 1619 project, And learning that the President of the United States is so worried about how corrosive it is that he's treating it like a disease.
How would you like to wake up in the morning and be like, ah, what's happening today?
Waking up. Let's see what's in the news.
What's in the news is that my life's work, the thing I'm most noted for, Is being treated by the President of the United States as sort of a disease that he's trying to get rid of.
That's what you call not your best day.
Although, I would imagine that the author and people beyond that think that it's still quite wonderful.
As Kurt Schlichter said on Twitter, he said that somehow the President managed to get The entire Democrat group, the establishment, to publicly unite against educating our children about the greatness of America.
And it's kind of perfect, isn't it?
The president, given that he knows that whatever he does will be opposed, he just keeps picking out things like, you know, puppies and patriotism and apple pie, and the Democrats are like, ah, all right, We've got to be against puppies now.
We like puppies, but we're going to have to be against puppies now.
So now they're against, presumably, they'll be against this.
So they'll be against education and telling kids that their country is good.
So the other thing that Biden lied about last night was he said that the The president, quote, has yet to condemn the far-right and white supremacists.
And, of course, the fact-checkers tear him apart because he has, in fact, condemned white supremacists and racists a number of times in public.
And Biden will just act like it never happened.
Let me ask you this.
Does Trump ever tell a lie of that kind?
It feels like that's a Biden kind of a lie.
Biden will tell a lie where he'll just say, Trump said he wants to shoot all babies.
And everybody will look around and say, that never happened.
That just never happened.
Whereas Trump doesn't really make up things that Biden said, does he, as much?
You'll probably come up with an example, because in the political season everybody's doing that, I suppose.
But I feel as though Trump says stuff like, you're losing it, or you're going to be a socialist.
When he makes a claim, there's at least something to it.
So when the president says, Joe Biden, you're against fracking, even though Joe Biden is trying to tap dance and say, no, no, no, I'm sort of against fracking, but I'm not really against fracking.
Well, I might be against it in the future, but But I'm not so much against it now.
Well, not on federal land, of course.
And yeah, you can still frack because we need a transition, but you can't do any new fracking.
So it just ends up being pretty close to what the president said.
Whereas when Biden makes up a lie, it just didn't even happen.
It's not close to what Trump said to claim that he said maybe we should drink bleach.
That's not close.
That's not in the ballpark.
When Trump says Biden's soft on fracking, and he maybe exaggerates it a little bit, just a little bit, you know what's going on there.
It's kind of transparent.
Okay, he's giving the extreme version, Biden's softening it, but they're basically talking about the same thing.
No, the fine people hoax is literally just made up.
Drinking bleach? Just made up.
What was the other one that he called soldiers losers and suckers?
Totally out of context.
Made up. Just made up.
These are different.
Just so I'm spreading the criticisms around, Fox News is making something out of Kamala Harris laughing about the statement that parents want their kids to go back to school.
So there's a little clip in which Kamala does her over laugh, you know, that awkward where she laughs too much.
But what she said was that everybody wants kids to go back to school, and then she laughed too hard.
So it makes it look like she's crazy or demented or something.
But the joke, obviously, because she was looking at somebody when she said it, the joke was that parents, of course, want to get their kids out of the house and back to school.
Every parent, maybe not every parent, lots of parents want their kids to go back to school.
And then she laughed about that because, you know, every parent laughs about it would be good to get the kids out of the house to go to school.
So that's all it was.
That's all it was. She was just laughing at something that people would laugh at normally.
She just overlaps, but somehow that became a clip to damn her.
By the way, we've seen now two different videos of Kamala Harris getting off her jet from the campaign and walking across the tarmac to a car, and it's this low angle that makes her look a little more impressive.
It's just the way they film it.
But one of them was wearing these Chuck Maddens or whatever they are, shoes.
And everybody got all excited.
Oh, she's running for vice president and she wears cool footwear.
Whoa! And then she repeated it.
So they did the same camera angle, same setup, but with wheat timberlands or something like that.
Some other kind of cool shoe.
And on one hand, I said to myself, well, that's the The most empty, vacuous, stupid thing you could be focusing on is somebody's footwear.
But when I saw the second one, I said to myself, it's not bad.
It's not bad.
Because remember, the whole point of the campaign is to make you feel a certain way.
It's not really an intellectual process who you're voting for.
It's who you feel. Do you like seeing President Trump always wearing a suit, unless he's golfing, I guess, but the fact he's always in a suit?
Yes. Oh, it's Chuck Taylors, not Chuck Maddens.
I don't know why she wears it. Thanks for correcting me.
Chuck Taylors are the name of the shoes.
And it's Timberlands.
Wheat Timberlands are the other kinds of shoes she wore.
So here's my take on it.
She looked really good.
In the way they filmed it and wearing the interesting footwear, it was just a real good angle.
It was a strong look because she's coming off a jet going to a limo.
She's being treated as special.
I thought it was really good.
Somebody says she's 5'2".
Really? Yeah, I would say that that was surprisingly well done because it just makes you feel...
Kind of a little bit positive toward her just because she's fashionable.
And if you think that being fashionable doesn't count, you're wrong.
You're wrong. Being fashionable absolutely makes a difference.
Voters do respond to stuff like that.
Here's another Biden fact check.
He says that Trump called COVID-19 a hoax.
No. Just didn't happen.
Just another thing he completely made up.
Yeah, he took something from a different context, but he totally made it up.
All right, here's three things that I think need to be figured out by the press and by the public.
So I ask people to fact check me on these three points.
Because every time I watch the news, it feels like they're talking past these facts.
So we're letting the news make us think past the sale.
So I'm backing him up to the sail.
And here are the three things I think we should find out if they're true.
I think they're true, but I'm asking for a fact check and nobody has debunked it yet that I saw.
Number one, is it true that Congress ignored the virus to focus on the doomed impeachment theater?
This is something Chris Rock was saying.
Chris Rock was blaming Congress.
In his framing of it, Trump is a child and So Congress should have, you know, known that the virus was something they needed to work on.
But they were focused on the impeachment, which was doomed and stupid from the beginning.
Now, when I say Congress ignored the virus, that's a little overstatement, right?
Not completely ignored, because I guess they had some kind of a hearing about the virus in Congress.
Now, Congress has a hearing about the virus.
Were they as informed, at least informed enough, compared to what the President knew at the same time?
Is it a fact that key members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were completely aware of the virus risk with the same information at about the same time as President Trump?
True or false? Because we didn't see Congress doing much, did we?
Why would the president be blamed for, quote, not taking it seriously, which is just crazy talk, if Congress also knew about it at the same time and didn't seem to be doing anything?
In fact, they were focusing on impeachment.
That's just true, right?
Is anything I said there not true?
All right, how about this one?
Trump followed his expert's advice all the way.
With no exceptions. For a while I thought it was an exception that I thought that nobody agreed with Trump about closing China travel, even though it wasn't totally closed.
But it turns out Fauci says yes, he was asked about it and he agreed.
So as far as I know, there are no examples of Fauci and Birx giving President Trump different advice than what he ended up doing.
That's the most important question of the election.
Have you seen anybody deal with that in the news?
I haven't. I haven't seen Fox deal with it.
I haven't seen CNN deal with it.
I haven't seen it.
But it's the most important question.
Give us an example where Trump did something either too late or different, because even timing could be part of it, that wasn't what the experts told him to do.
If you can't come up with that, Then the problem is that the experts weren't right.
Do we blame the experts for not being right?
I hope not. I hope not.
Because we should be adult enough to know that our experts were doing the best they could.
And they were world experts.
They genuinely had all the capabilities.
It's just that there were a lot of unknowns.
There was a little bit of guessing involved.
So I don't blame the experts But you certainly can't blame the person who took their advice when that was the only smart thing to do.
How about this? True or false?
This is my statement. Trump never had an option to test our way out of the virus the way some other countries did.
So my claim is that a few other countries, because of special cases, they did have an option to be aggressive on testing and tracking.
And it could make a difference.
But that because the United States is not only bigger and has more travel and just has a lot more variables, but also we didn't have tests.
South Korea had tests because one private company ramped up before they were asked to.
So somebody did something smart, but it wasn't the government.
It was a private company who thought they could make some money and jumped into it.
Whereas I believe the story is that our test kits were defective, but nobody knew it.
So if you got a late start because your experts didn't know their test kits were bad, would that not have happened in the Obama administration?
Would President Obama have been sitting in his office, in the Oval Office, and looking at his day's work when there's no pandemic, it's just a day, Was President Obama going to say, you know, what we need to do is fill up our warehouses with PPE? Did that happen?
That didn't happen. Trump didn't do it.
Obama didn't do it. Nobody ever did it.
Didn't happen. How about, did Obama say to himself, you know, my ESP is telling me that the test kits we're going to put together if we have a pandemic, I don't think they're going to work.
We better do some kind of a big program now to get them to work against the virus that hasn't been discovered yet.
How do you test it before you have a virus?
So, here's the thing.
Clearly, the United States did not do well on testing.
I think we can all agree on that, right?
You don't have to be a Republican or Democrat to say the U.S. did not do good on testing.
But whose fault was it?
Was that the President?
Was he in the laboratory mixing up the chemicals?
And he's like, I think I got it now.
That looks about right.
Ship it, guys. I don't think that happened.
I think that the president had an expectation that the lifetime professionals working there would get it right.
They didn't. Now, was it their fault?
Well, I think you'd have to dig in quite a bit to find out what went wrong.
It could be that whatever went wrong was something that nobody could have seen.
It could have been just a weird...
Coincidence, bad accident kind of thing.
You don't really know the details of that.
Alright, so if we could find out those three things, did Congress ignore the virus, too, at the same time, with the same knowledge?
Did Trump follow all of his expert advice, or did he depart from it at any time in an important way?
And number three, did Trump ever have the option that other countries had of testing their way out?
Because the ones that did it had something special going on in each case.
Alright. And as I predicted a few months ago, I said, don't compare the United States to Europe and other countries just yet.
Because those other countries are not done.
They're not done.
Just because they got on top of it early and really put a lid on it, it looked like, As soon as they open up international travel, that's it.
There's no such thing as containing the virus in one country.
That's not a thing, unless you keep the borders closed, and that's not sustainable.
So sure enough, exactly as every one of you should have been able to predict, but for whatever reason, at least in the news, people weren't, there's a big increase in cases since September.
In Europe. And France is absorbing 10,000 new cases a day.
And it says, from one report, that the second wave might be hitting differently than the first wave.
In other words, the second wave might give them quite a whack.
So, gotta wait till the end.
You know, if the U.S. death rate continues to plunge, but Europe takes off again, are they gonna be so lucky?
I don't know. Have to wait.
I think the dumbest comment that anybody could make in public is that Trump didn't take the virus seriously.
Because first of all, that's mind reading.
You're assuming that you know somebody's state of mind, how seriously they took something.
And now we've got this former Pence advisor who's going public against Trump and says that he didn't take the virus seriously.
He was only interested in election.
That is a child's view.
If you hear that, you don't even need to hear the rest of it.
If somebody tells you that there was a president of the United States who didn't take a pandemic seriously and only cared about election, just stop listening to that person.
They're not a person who should be listened to because they don't know what the president's feeling on the inside and, objectively speaking, He took it deadly seriously.
He closed traffic from China.
Now, yes, he should have maybe closed it more aggressively or sooner or whatever, but you can't argue that he took it seriously.
He did the most serious thing you could do and early, and he did it for exactly the reason that it was serious.
And he said out loud, I'm going to tell people the rosier view, but I'm taking it seriously.
It's deadly. So, So making a story out of this woman, and I'm going to be cruel here for a minute, because I feel like I have a free shot.
I wouldn't do this in every situation, but when you have somebody who's willing to put themselves personally by their name, first of all, I appreciate it when somebody's giving their real name, so we'll give her credit for that, her name, Olivia Troy.
Who was the Mike Pence employee who turned on the president publicly.
So I'll give her credit for doing it publicly and with her own name.
We should always give people credit for that because that's invested.
These are not drive-by people.
These are people who are taking a chance, a big chance, with their own lives and reputations for apparently they think they need to.
But If they're taking a chance to get the wrong thing, well, that's a problem.
Here's the thing. I'm going to be consistent and say that I can't read the inner thoughts or feelings of a stranger exactly the way Olivia Troi can't read the inner thoughts and priorities of President Trump.
It's just not a thing. You can't see in people's heads.
So I don't know what she's actually thinking or how she actually feels.
I can only tell you as an observer what does the situation make me feel.
So I'm only talking about myself.
That's the only part I can talk about authoritatively.
And when I see her talking, she doesn't look mentally stable.
Which is completely different than saying she is not mentally stable.
Because I'm not making that claim because I don't know her.
She had a high-end job.
All the evidence suggests that she's perfectly functional because she had a high-end job and she had security clearance, probably well-educated.
So I'm only telling you how I receive it.
And I don't know why, but they seem to pick people for this kind of a role who just have a vibe about them that says there's something wrong And that it doesn't have anything to do with the president.
Do you get that? I'm looking at your comments to see if I'm the only one.
Now, before you jump on me and say, Scott, Scott, Scott, I think you're just being a little sexist.
Would you say that about a man, Scott?
If this had been a man, would you say, looks a little unstable?
Yes! Yes!
Yes, I would say that about a man.
That's weird. My light just went out by itself.
Of course I would say that about a man.
Alexa, turn on studio.
Huh. My light just died on me.
Well, we might be a little bit in the dark here.
Alright. That's all I got here.
I'm going to make a prediction just so you have something to track.
Here's my prediction, that by the end of the year, in that December-January time frame, the news will start to report that the old regular flu, you know, the one that we've been told kills 50 to 1,000 people a year, that the news by the end of this year will be that that was never real.
It's a pretty big prediction, isn't it?
That the most common thing everybody knows to be true, universally believed to be true, That 50,000 to 80,000 people a year will die from the regular flu.
I am now predicting that by the end of this year, that will no longer be considered a fact.
It will be modified somehow.
It just won't be true anymore.
And I say that because you can only go so long denying your own eyes.
I'm always willing to believe the science and the statistics and the experts first.
That's my first impulse.
Like, oh, all the experts say that's true?
Okay. How many experts say that?
All of them? Really?
So pretty much all of the experts are saying the same thing?
Okay. Very convincing.
You have my attention.
But what happens if you wake up every day and the thing they say is true, you don't see?
And you should see it.
In other words, if they said, all the experts say, It's going to rain every day where you live.
And you say, all right, all the experts say it's going to rain every day.
And then I wake up and it's not raining.
They go, okay, well, you know, one day it didn't rain.
That doesn't mean they're wrong, wrong.
It just means, you know, slightly wrong, maybe.
Could be a lot of other days it rains.
Then you wake up the next day and it's not raining again.
How many days do you wake up and it's not raining before you say, you know, all the experts have said it rains every day.
Maybe they're not right.
Well, that's where I'm at now.
The fact, just do the math here.
Let's say at the low end, 50,000 people a year died of the regular flu.
So take 50,000 a year and multiply it by my 63 years of life.
But let's say I wasn't really paying attention until I was 13.
So let's say just 50 years.
Alexa, what is 50 times 50,000?
50 times 50,000 is 2.5 million.
So I should have seen 2.5 million people, not seen them, but there should have been 2.5 million people who died over my lifetime that I should have noticed.
Right? I should have noticed.
A friend of a friend, somebody's cousin.
But 200,000 people have died in this country.
And we all have noticed.
We all know somebody who knows somebody, right?
Don't you all know somebody who knows somebody, or at least you've seen somebody in the news or whatever?
How can it be that this regular flu is killing people like crazy, and we just never notice?
The only time we notice is when it's this flu.
It's possible it's real, but I'm going to stick with my prediction that it has never been real.
And here's my hypothesis.
That there is danger from the flu, but the reason they say that so many people are dying from it has a lot to do with making sure you get the vaccination.
That's what I think. I think it has to do with getting the vaccination.
I don't think it has to do with reality.
Somebody says they may be very old.
Could be. Could be that they're very old, but I know a lot of old people have died.
Over the course of my life, I know quite a bit of people who have died from old age.
