Episode 1129 Scott Adams: I Explain the McConnell Rule to Dale the Democrat, Princeton Confesses Racism, Tiny Dancer RBG
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
An awesome Presidential response to news of RBG passing
Explaining "McConnell Rule" to Dale the Democrat
Talk of "burn down the country"
Chant: "Who do we protect?" "Black criminals!"
Princeton systemic racism investigation
Pending "Bombshell" report on Hunter Biden and Burisma
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best part of the day? Every single time.
Every now and then you say to yourself, well, it can't be the best part of the day again.
But it can. It really can.
And here it is. And all you need to enjoy the best part of the day is, well, I think you know.
It's a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen drink or a 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. Oh, that's what I needed.
That's what we all needed.
So I was just watching a video in Portland of the protesters, and apparently somebody who lived in an apartment above where the protesters were thought it would be funny to throw eggs at the protesters from above.
And I thought to myself, how many of those windows open?
Because if the protesters are in areas Below, lots of places that have windows that open.
Well, I think we've found a way to solve this problem.
Sounds like if the police won't take care of the protesters, there's nothing that chickens plus residents can't get done together.
You might break a few eggs, as they say.
As the saying goes, you've got to break a few eggs to stop a protest.
I think that's a saying, right?
Alright, let's talk about the news.
The most impressive thing that happened last night is that, of course you all know the news, Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away last night.
And one of her greatest accomplishments in a life full of accomplishments is that in 2020, right before a major contentious election, the most divided we've ever been in this country For a period of about one hour, nobody in the country was a dick.
Did you notice? I turned on the TV and I thought, well, how long will it be before people start being awful?
And I thought, oh, it's actually just people saying nice things and caring about her family and respecting her legacy, respectfully saying that maybe they disagreed with her own policy, but...
That she was a great woman.
And it kind of felt good, didn't it?
I don't know if you sampled it, but obviously if you went to MSNBC or CNN, they would be pro-Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you'd expect it to go that way.
But if you went over to Fox, very respectful.
Very respectful from Hannity all the way through.
And I kind of appreciated it.
I kind of appreciated it, that there was just an hour for the whole year.
There was just like this one hour where we were not being dicks to each other.
It felt good. So, here's a rule I would like to suggest.
You know, generally speaking, we don't like to talk business the same day somebody died.
You know, you don't want to be talking about, so, you know, who gets the job after this person died?
You know, the moment they've died.
But I would like to make an exception in this case.
Number one, it appears that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is universally respected.
So nobody's going to be disrespecting her just because we're talking about what happens in the vacancy.
Number two, if somebody's last written statement on their deathbed Talks about filling their vacancy, then you can talk about it too.
You can talk about it the moment they pass.
Because that was literally their dying wish.
So her dying wish is that we talk about and deal with her replacement.
She said it specifically.
So I think in this case it is perfectly respectful to just jump in and talk about the politics of it because that was literally her final wish.
Let's talk about all of the things.
Number one, did you all see President Trump's masterful reaction when he was told about her death?
If he didn't see it, he was leaving his event.
Apparently he did not hear about it during his speech because he was on stage when it happened.
And it was a long, I don't know, two hours on stage.
So there was a long period where everybody in the country except the President of the United States knew Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed.
So he gets off the stage and he goes to his plane and the press pool is there.
Cameras are on. And It was one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen for a political situation.
And here's what was remarkable.
Because of the setup, because it was a plane on a tarmac and it was just right after an event, you know, most important person in the world, the President of the United States, most important event, the lighting and the set were perfect for this.
It looked just like a movie set.
Just perfectly lit.
In the background, quite easily heard, was Elton John's Tiny Dancer.
Tiny Dancer?
Are you kidding me?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is about, what was she, five feet tall or something?
Very small. I mean, when you think of her, you think of her as tiny.
Tiny and female.
Tiny Dancer is playing in the background.
When the president comes up and is told, he says, what?
And then he gave what I would say would be very, I would say, an empathy-filled response that looked genuine.
And he looked like just a real human being who was just expressing his sadness.
He said he felt sad.
And And that she was an amazing, amazing woman.
And he said she had an amazing life, etc.
Now, you don't expect the president to be empathetic, to show real concern, and to be respectful.
You know, you kind of, you think he's in rally mode and campaign mode and RBG was on the other side politically.
So you'd think that maybe he wouldn't give a perfect response, but he kind of did.
And I think that I saw at least one hardcore anti-Trumper even say, okay, gotta admit, gotta admit that was very presidential.
So let me add the fun part of this.
You ready? Do you believe that the president walked all the way from the stage to the airplane without anybody telling him that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died?
Really? Do you really think...
Somebody says she was 4'6", is that true?
Do you really think he made it all the way from the stage?
Now, the stage was really near the airplane.
So you can see the stage and the airplane, it's on the tarmac, literally on the tarmac.
So he only had to get down and walk, I don't know, maybe a few plane lengths to get to the plane.
But do you think anybody talked to him when he got off the stage?
Nobody shouted it out.
The first person he talked to didn't say, I just want to give you a heads up, RGB passed away.
Because you know everybody else knew it.
Nobody there didn't know it by the time you got off the stage.
So, you have two possibilities, and they're both awesome.
There are only two possibilities, and one is just more awesome than the other.
You almost can't tell which is more awesome.
One, Is that what you saw is exactly what happened.
He was surprised.
He gave you a genuine reaction that was very human.
And I would say he acquitted himself quite well presidentially.
That would be awesome.
I think we could hope that that happened.
The other possibility is that he knew it was coming and therefore...
He gave the best answer you could give because he had a little heads up.
If that happened and he pulled it off, it's also pretty awesome.
Now, you could argue and say, well, but that's not fair because he's misleading us by acting as if he's just hearing it.
It's a political campaign.
He's in the middle of a political campaign.
Nobody is telling the truth about anything from now on Who knows?
Until Election Day at least.
But you don't really expect the same standard, at least I don't, in an election.
You expect that everything is political.
Our system is designed that way.
It's fine. Everything can be political for a while.
You know, that doesn't kill anybody.
You can be political during a political season.
There could be maybe a little smoke and mirrors.
Could be a little bit of shading, shading reality a little bit to get the best picture.
So here's my take on it.
Whether that was a little bit planned or completely spontaneous, it was still damn good.
Right? Because, first of all, even if it was a little bit planned, even if he had a heads up, that doesn't mean his reaction wasn't real.
His reaction might have been his genuine feeling.
He just waited to give it.
So no matter what it was, real or a little bit planned, it was still awesome.
It was a really good job because we just expect our president to act a certain way, and I think he did it.
I would like to explain to you the so-called McConnell rule.
You'll be hearing a lot about this.
It has to do with the circumstances in which you would delay a nomination or a confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.
And it's based on history.
And since it's been done once before, McConnell delayed Obama's nomination.
And I want to explain it to you, but I'd like to explain it to Dale the Democrat.
Have you met Dale?
Dale? Dale, can you come over here?
Here I am. What can I do for you?
Dale, I'd like to explain to you the McConnell Rule.
Have you heard of it? It's about when you do or do not replace the Supreme Court Justice.
Let me just show you this, Dale, on the whiteboard.
So there are two important elements of the McConnell Rule.
Rule number one, and these are These are things that would cause you to delay a nomination that normally you wouldn't delay.
So delaying is unusual.
But on these two conditions, McConnell says you could or should.
It's an election year, like now.
This is an election year.
So that fits, right?
The first thing fits.
It's an election year. And this is important, Dale.
Dale, are you listening to this?
This is important.
And, not or...
Not or. And, both of these have to be true, that the President and the Senate are opposite parties.
Now, the reason for that is if the Senate and the President are opposite parties, you don't quite know what you're going to get.
There's a little more uncertainty.
But, if they were the same party, well, you know, just go ahead because you're going to get what you want anyway.
So, Dale, do you understand this?
It's two requirements.
They both have to be met And because the President and the Senate at the moment are the same party, that this second one is not met.
So the McConnell rule, one of the things applies, it's an election year, but the other important part doesn't apply.
Do you understand that, Dale?
Absolutely! You're being a hypocrite!
Okay, I'm not sure what that means.
Why am I being a hypocrite?
Because... McConnell delayed the confirmation for Obama, but he's not going to do it for Trump.
That is hypocrites.
Okay, well, but there's a rule here.
You see, there's a rule, and there are two things, and they're not satisfied.
That's why it's different, Dale.
You see that it's different, right?
It's an election year.
Okay, election year.
Election year would be 1-1.
Of the two things.
You see there are two things here.
That would be one of them.
I'm going to burn down everything.
If they nominate somebody and they approve it, we're going to burn down the whole country.
The whole effing country. Burn it down.
Okay, but why are you doing that?
I'm confused.
Is it because you don't like the McConnell rule or you're just going to ignore the McConnell rule?
No, I'm using the color rule.
I'm using it just like you did.
Same thing. It's an election year.
But do you see this?
This part's here.
Do you see this, Dale?
Gonna burn down the whole country.
Gonna burn it down.
Alright, Dale. Dale, can you come over here?
We just need to talk.
Would you give me a minute?
I need to talk to Dale.
Dale, could you come over here?
Present.
Dale.
Dale. Dale.
Alright, so that is how you explain the McConnell rule to a Democrat.
I'd like to think there's another way to do it where you just explain it and then they understand it and then they act as though they understand it.
But that doesn't seem to be an option in an election year.
So here's the question.
Will McConnell go ahead and And he said he'd have the vote.
But does he have the votes?
Do we know that yet?
I don't think we know if he has the votes, right?
So if he doesn't have the votes, maybe not.
I also don't know if Trump would have an advantage if he nominated somebody or would he have more of an advantage if he didn't.
It's very hard. It's hard to score this one, right?
Imagine, if you will, just a thought experiment.
Suppose several senators say, because I think Lindsey Graham has said he's on record as saying that he wouldn't nominate somebody in this situation, because Lindsey Graham is also looking at just the election year part.
He's on video saying that at least two different times he has promised that he would not be part of nominating somebody in an election year.
So we'll see if he sticks with that.
But if you're President Trump, would you be better off getting the nomination through, or would you be better off not getting it through?
It's hard to know, isn't it?
Because if you were trying to get people to show up to the voting booth, what would get them there more?
Let's say you're a Republican, And you're on the fence about voting.
You're like, ah, I'm busy that day.
It's just one vote.
I don't need to vote.
And you have two situations.
One is that Ginsburg has been replaced and that there's somebody in the job and now there's a commanding conservative majority in the court.
Do you need to vote if you have a commanding conservative majority and that's what you cared about?
Well, you might say, maybe I'll get another judge if Trump gets elected.
But you might say to yourself, you might, yeah, two-judge advantage.
You know, you've got a little advantage there.
So, yeah, that's good enough.
So I don't know how voters will react, if they'll be more or less motivated based on whether there is or is not somebody filling that position.
I would think, if I were President Trump, this is what I would prefer.
This is just a preliminary thought.
I think there are smarter people like, you know, if an hour from now you see Karl Rove disagree with me, you should probably just take Karl Rove's opinion.
Because I'm a little bit out of my depth here.
Just a little bit. And here's the thought.
You have a million topics that people will be thinking about from the coronavirus to the economy to foreign relations and everything else.
But if there's an open Supreme Court seat and it's being held open for the next president, under that condition, that's the only thing that matters.
Coronavirus? It's not going to matter much if there's an open Supreme Court seat.
All you're going to care about is that seat.
Every conservative who might have been angry at the president for whatever coronavirus stuff is going to say, okay, I didn't like that coronavirus stuff, but I really care about this Supreme Court seat.
So what it would do if you left it open...
If Trump left it open intentionally, number one, he'd look like a good guy.
He wouldn't look like a dictator.
But I don't think it's his personality to wait.
My guess is that Trump's personality is that if something's available, he's going to take it.
So if there's any chance he can get this through, I think he'd push it.
But... If he didn't, and he just completely fooled everybody and said, hey, let's...
Imagine if he said, let's honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg by leaving it open.
It would just blow your head off, wouldn't it?
Because number one, he wouldn't feel like a dictator.
Number two, it would seem so fair that you would be confused.
Like, who is this?
But it would also take every other topic off the table, and it would only be the Supreme Court, effectively.
And does the President have an advantage if the only thing you're talking about is the Supreme Court?
Maybe. I'd have to see the polling on this.
I don't know how you'd really be able to suss that out.
But my feeling is that conservatives quite care more about the Supreme Court than the Democrats do.
So I think he'd actually get an advantage, but it'd be a risky play.
I know. And it's going to set a precedent either way.
Here's a question for you.
It seems that the whole country has this idea in their head that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be replaced with a woman.
To which I say, if that standard becomes something that, although it's not a law, it's not a constitutional requirement, but if it becomes sort of hardened into a standard, is it constitutional?
It feels completely unconstitutional to decide that one of the seats or any of the seats on the Supreme Court have to go to a certain gender or a certain ethnicity.
Isn't that the opposite of what the Supreme Court should be helping us do?
Shouldn't they be the one place where they just don't look at that?
Now, I happen to be Completely in favor of diversity in the Supreme Court.
So if he gave me a choice, of course.
I would rather have diversity and get a good mix of male-female, get some other ethnicities in there.
I think that'd be great because it gives you more credibility for your decisions.
But even though I would like that outcome, and even though there's a historical precedent for You know, holding a seat open for a certain gender in particular.
Isn't it completely against the Constitution to do that?
You know, if somebody went into for a job interview at a corporation, and the corporation said, you know, you're very qualified, but you're a man, and we're just not picking men.
Would that be legal?
If somebody went in for a job working for the court, let's say they wanted a job clerking for one of the Supreme Court justices, and they go in for the interview, and whoever's doing the interviewing says, you know, we really want a woman for this job.
Would that be legal?
It wouldn't, would it?
So it seems to me that having a gender requirement for the Supreme Court is the most unconstitutional thing you could possibly come up with.
Even though, as I say, I think we'd be better off with a diverse court.
It's just kind of creepy that the only way you can get there is by violating the Constitution.
No better way to do that?
Already there are crazy people, and by that I mean people on the left, Who are talking about burning down the country if that seat gets filled.
What would happen if you just took all their energy out of them and just said, you know what?
Why don't we just wait? All these people who think they're going to burn down the country and take to the streets and all that.
What if you just said, yeah, you know, you got a good point.
We'll just wait. It would take all the energy out.
It would be interesting.
All right. Remember I told you that It would be theoretically possible to do a gigantic prank on the protesters in whatever city you are protesting because they're loosely organized.
And I said all you'd have to do is get a charismatic young black woman because that would be the highest credibility within the protester community.
A young black woman would just automatically be sort of the top of the ranks.
And if that person was a prankster, hypothetically, had a megaphone, they could just walk into the protest and start getting the protesters to say or do anything they wanted, no matter how ridiculous.
And yesterday I saw a video of a young black woman with a megaphone who was leading a bunch of protesters.
I forget which city. It might have been, I don't know, probably Portland or something.
And Here's what she was getting them to chant.
So the woman with the megaphone was telling them to chant behind her, and they were, and the chant was this, who do we protect?
And then the callback was black criminals.
Who do we protect?
Black criminals.
Now, Is that real?
Now, people came in and said, Scott, Scott, Scott, you think that was a prank, but there's other video of other times when this is actually one of their standard, this is an actual thing that they say.
It's not a joke.
They actually say, who do we protect?
Black criminals. And it's both white and black people who are marching, and they're all black criminals.
Now, do you think that's real?
Now here's the best part.
It could be real.
It could be. But it is identical.
It is identical to a joke.
I've talked about the parody crossover where reality and parody merge and you just can't tell them apart.
Can you tell this apart?
Tell me the truth.
If you saw this out of context, and you saw them doing this chant, would you think that was serious?
Because I don't think you would.
Trump tweeted.
Trump tweeted what?
Did he tweet that very clip?
Anyway, whether or not that's real, I tweeted it like it was not real because I think it's funnier to treat it like it's not real.
If Black Lives Matter wanted to completely discredit themselves, yeah, and the woman with the megaphone who was leading the chant was laughing, but that alone doesn't mean it's not real.
There's an even funnier story.
This is the best story of 2020.
Are you ready? Pretty big claim, right?
2020 is a wild, wild year.
This is my claim.
The following story that I'm going to tell you that is in the news is the best story of 2020 because it captures 2020 the best.
You ready? This is a winner.
You're going to be happy about this.
The Education Department, the government's Department of Education, they opened an investigation into Princeton University.
Now, do you know why they opened an investigation into Princeton University?
It was because the president wrote a document, some kind of public document, in which he said that Princeton has racism embedded in the school.
So the president of Princeton declared that his own school had systemic racism.
Now, what's the first thing you say about that?
It's like, well, that's nothing. Doesn't every left-leaning person believe that every major institution has systemic racism?
And the answer is, yeah, probably.
Every left-leaning person does believe exactly that.
So would it be a surprise that the president of Princeton believes that Princeton...
Still has some systemic racism that it needs to deal with.
And the answer is, that's not surprising.
Here's the surprising part.
This couldn't have made me happier.
That the education department is launching an investigation because they're under suspicion that they're racists.
Because the government can't give federal money to a college unless that college is non-racist.
But Princeton just labeled itself racist and therefore made them ineligible for federal funds.
And the funny part is that the federal government acted on it.
That's the funny part.
You'd expect them just to shake their heads and say, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Everybody on the left thinks everything's racist.
That just doesn't mean anything.
But the Department of Education decided to treat it like it was serious.
Because they treated it seriously.
If the president of Princeton is going to say publicly and seriously and no joke about it, Princeton is a racist organization, Then the federal government is required to stop funding them.
So there's your Ivy League of Education.
That's just the best story.
Now, you know, I don't have a preference about how that turns out, but just the mere fact that that even happened is great.
Andres Backhouse pointed out that Spain is about to, according to the latest statistics on coronavirus, Spain is about to surpass the United States again in terms of confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million population on a seven-day rolling average.
So we're going to see countries, you know, Having more infections and trading places and stuff.
So I keep reminding you, wait until the end of this coronavirus to know who did a good job and who didn't.
There was a comparison of countries that In our world in data, countries with the lowest infections also had the best economies.
So there was a tweet that pointed out that everybody thought there was going to be a trade-off between how many people get infected and how well the economy does.
That was the basic understanding that you could either have a good economy or you could be good on infections, but you couldn't be good on both.
And what they found with their data is that the countries who had the lowest infections also had the best economies.
So therefore, if the ones with the lowest infections also had the best economies, or the least damage to their economy, wouldn't it be true that the best thing you can do for your economy is to reduce the number of infections?
Right? Common sense?
Just logically?
If all the ones with low infections also have the best economies, then managing your infections is the way to keep your economy strong, right?
No. No.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
Here's what's wrong with it.
You can't compare different countries, because the countries that didn't have many infections, did they need to close their economy?
No. If you didn't have many infections, you didn't need to close your economy.
So doesn't it make sense that countries that did it either by luck or by skill had low infections?
Of course they had a good economy.
But the proper comparison would be country to itself, which you can't do.
What you'd want to see is the United States with a shutdown, Versus the United States without a shutdown.
And you can't study that.
It can't be studied.
Because you only did one of them.
You didn't do both.
You only did one of those things.
So you don't know what would the economy have been if we shut down more aggressively.
You don't know. So this is another example of data that looks like it would be useful, but if you go just a little bit A little bit down into the detail, you see it's just completely meaningless.
It is virtually random data, so it means nothing.
Let's see, there's a story that didn't get a lot of play, got a little play yesterday.
That the post office was getting ready to mail out, because there was a government plan, to mail out five masks to each address in April, so that everybody would have five masks reusable.
And that got cancelled.
The reason given for why it was cancelled is that the government didn't want to panic people by sending them masks, because they might panic.
Do you believe that?
You shouldn't. You should not believe this story.
If you've ever smelled fake news, smell that.
That post office story has fake news written all over it.
And here's your cue. How do you know it's fake news?
Well, if somebody said, the president told me we don't want to panic people and that's why we're not going to mail them out, that might be real.
Especially if you had two sources that heard it.
If you had one anonymous source, then you wouldn't trust that.
But suppose you don't even have an anonymous source who's saying that somebody told them to do it.
Suppose it's just an anonymous source who simply speculates that the reason was they didn't want anybody to panic.
Who said it?
Where did that come from?
Who came up with the idea that the reason To stop it was to stop the panic.
That's not an evidence.
This is clearly fake news.
Now, could it become real news?
Yes, it could. It could become real news if we found an actual source.
Maybe somebody went on camera and said, yeah, you know, I was standing right there.
The president said, write to me personally, cancel this because we don't want to panic anybody.
And two people heard it.
That would be news.
But somebody in the post office speculating about why something happened?
That's not news.
That is fake news.
Now what would be any other reason that the post office would plan to mail five masks to everybody and then change their mind?
Can you think of any reason that that might have happened?
I can. How about the fact that nobody had a problem getting a mask on their own?
Have you seen any situation, even once, where somebody said, I want to wear a mask, but I can't get one?
No, because it was permissive.
You could put a bandana on you or whatever, and a mask costs practically nothing, and lots of businesses hand them out.
So the more likely reason that they canceled it, Yeah, it was expensive, and it didn't buy them much because everybody had no problems getting a mask.
Somebody says, what about knowing about sizes?
Oh, I think you could do a universal size.
The kind that I use would fit pretty much anybody.
All right, so I've got all that fake news.
Of course, my smart Democrat friend sent this article to me and said, well, you can't doubt this one.
Caught that Trump red-handed this time.
I haven't responded to him yet, but no.
He did not catch anybody red-handed.
it's just fake news alright yeah toilet paper would have been appreciated as somebody says in the comments there alright
Sarah Carter is reporting that there is a The Senate Homeland Security Committee is going to release a report like in about a week about Joe Biden's son and Ukraine and Burisma, I guess. So that might be a bombshell.
What do you think? Do you think that a report about Joe Biden's son and Burisma, do you think that that will be a bombshell report or not a bombshell report?
This will be a test to see how well you have been following the news.
The answer is, it will be a bombshell report.
Even if, even if there's nothing in it.
Because that's how we do it now.
So today, the fact that a report exists makes it a bombshell.
And the people who want it to be a bombshell...
We'll simply go on television and they'll tweet and they'll say, my God, what a bombshell.
It's a smoking gun.
It shows that bad things happened with the Bidens in Ukraine.
Right? And that will happen no matter what's in the report.
The report could say, you know, we started to do a report, but we got bored and it didn't seem important, so we're just going to write one page that says we didn't do anything.
And that's the whole report. What would...
What would half of the country report about the report?
They'd say it's a bombshell.
It's a bombshell. Yeah, we didn't see this coming, but it's so bad in Ukraine they couldn't even find it all.
So they had to give up.
And they'll just mischaracterize it.
So it doesn't matter who does it.
It doesn't matter which side creates the bombshell report.
The side that wants to interpret it as a bombshell is just going to go ahead and do it.
It doesn't matter what's in it.
It's completely irrelevant what is in the report.
It will just be a bombshell.
And will the Democrats then react to this bombshell and say, oh, you got us now.
You know, we didn't believe this Burisma stuff, but now we've got this bombshell report.
Well, that changes everything.
And Joe Biden, you're going to have to step down.
Do you think that'll happen?
No. That won't happen, even if there is a bombshell.
That report could say that Joe Biden himself was taking a bribe, and it's on camera, it's on video.
It wouldn't matter.
No matter what it is, the entire left of the country is going to say, that didn't happen.
And then you'll say, it's right here on video, and there's this whole report, and there's a whole task force, and yeah, it happened.
We got lots of witnesses and video.
And then the left will say, no, it didn't.
That's it. We've reached a point where one side can simply say, no, that didn't happen.
What can you do?
Because once you don't have a functioning news in your country, we don't have like a credible news entity, you can make any claim because the news that agrees with you will back you up.
Oh yeah, no, there was nothing in there.
We read it all day long.
There was nothing in there. And the other side will make up their version.
And they'll report it like it's true.
Alright. Just looking at your comments.
The Biden Burisma bombshell.
The three B's.
Build back better. And I would say that Joe Biden did relatively well in reading his statement about...
Ginsburg when he got off the plane.
Because you do wonder, can Biden spontaneously respond to questions?
That's a question, right?
If he's not prepared.
But it looked like somebody wrote him a prepared speech and he stood in front of people and he read it.
So it wasn't a very high level of difficulty.
All right. Yeah, they said that about Strzok's text messages.
They said about everything. Tesla?
What about Tesla? That seems like a question, but I don't know what it is.
Alright, that's all I've got for now. I'll talk to you later.
