Episode 1136 Scott Adams: Debate Strategy, Dividing the Country into Two Countries, ACB, Vitamin D, Black America Plan
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden debate options, possibilities
A "color revolution" in process...in America?
Amy Coney Barrett expectations
Bill Maher ponders "rounding up" Republicans
Whiteboard: Luck
Joe Biden's offensive "stupid bastards" remark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. Does it seem like I'm a little bit late?
That's because I'm preparing.
I have to get my whiteboard ready because I know how much you like your whiteboard lessons.
So that's coming up.
Yeah, this is the best part of the day.
It's going to be pretty good.
It's going to be off the hook. And all you need to enjoy it to its maximum potential is...
is what? I think you know.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or sign a canteen jug or a flask or 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 you can see the world improving with every delicious taste.
Go! Let me tell you about a discovery I made recently.
I was trying to cut down on my coffee, well, my caffeine Content.
And I found that if you add hot water to coffee, so that it's half just hot water and half coffee, instead of tasting like bad watered down coffee, it turns into a different kind of beverage.
It just tastes like coffee flavored warm beverage.
You'd think it would be terrible.
But it's delicious. And I can drink more coffee that way.
So it works.
Has Joe Biden declared a lid yet?
Has anybody heard from him?
Because I think this is just about the time he wakes up and Jill Biden goes in and shakes him a little bit and says, Joe, do you know where you are?
What's your name? And if he says, uh...
I think I'm Joe Biden and I'm in my basement.
And if he gets the right answer, then she talks to the campaign and she says, he's good to go.
Put him on Zoom, quick, quick, before he loses it.
So that's what's going on.
We're watching as Spotify employees are apparently threatening to strike over wanting to have control over Joe Rogan's content.
So Joe Rogan gets this enormous payday going over to Spotify, and you would assume that part of the negotiations for that deal is some kind of agreement about who has editorial control.
Well, the employees of Spotify, who are probably not personally negotiating that deal, have decided that they can't possibly abide by all that free speech that doesn't agree with them, and so they might go on strike.
Oh, my God.
My smartest Democratic friend, who I mention often because I like to give you an update on me trying to convince him out of his TTS, So here's the funniest thing that happened.
So this week, as you know, the additional emails came out about the whole investigation into the Russia collusion thing.
And we got some new information about also Hunter Biden and We got information about Ukraine and how Hunter Biden had taken money from a billionaire Russian, the ex-wife of the Moscow mayor.
So obviously pretty close to Putin.
So I was thinking to myself, I can't wait.
I can't wait to hear what my smartest Democratic friend says.
Because once this information about Hunter Biden comes out, You're just going to have to admit that there's a problem with Joe Biden, because now that it's clear he knew what was going on, that part we know from the new documentation, so Joe Biden was aware of these concerns about his son.
As far as we know, there's no specific crime that is alleged, and I'm not alleging that either.
It's just that it's really, really swampy.
And so I thought to myself, this is going to be good.
What in the world is my smartest Democratic friend going to say that could possibly explain away Joe Biden's connection to this swampy stuff?
And so he emailed me and said, well, looks like the New York Times has looked into this and there's nothing to worry about.
What? What?
And so I looked at the article and sure enough, the New York Times had decided that all the new information about Hunter Biden is not illegal.
So we're good here, right?
How in the world?
How in the world do we go from a Trump has these Russian connections and it's the end of the world All the way to the other side where, well, it turns out that Hunter Biden, and by extension, through the family blackmail connection, looks like Joe Biden's got a Russia problem.
Which doesn't matter.
Now suddenly, no, it's not technically illegal, so why are you even bringing it up?
So to watch the mental machinations of people trying to understand their world.
It's pretty funny. Alright, I saw some experts giving some debate strategy advice.
And I would agree with the following advice.
That the more President Trump can tie every topic to the economy, the better he looks.
Because the economy is his strongest topic.
So I would agree that any time the president can say, well, let's bring it over to the economy, he's going to be winning.
And you could do that with almost everything.
Let's say the topic is health care.
The president will say, yes, I've done this to lower drug prices.
I've done this to allow telemedicine across state lines, which should have a good effect on things.
We're doing this and that to increase the market.
And these are things that are going to be good for the economy, and that works.
So you could talk about climate change.
Well, we've got to get the economy right to be able to deal with climate change.
You could do it with coronavirus.
It's not just about the direct deaths.
It's also about the economy.
I think he can tie just about everything to the economy.
And the things that he can't, Are things that people have already made their mind up about.
You know, the Supreme Court picks, for example.
There's not much you can do about that.
Republicans are going to like it.
Democrats are not going to like it.
But there's not much to debate.
It's just, it's going to be what it is.
So, I think the President's got a real strong play there.
Just tie everything to the economy any way you can, and he's going to look pretty good.
Now, do you think we're going to make it all the way to Tuesday?
And have that debate?
What do you think?
If you had to put the odds on it today, is Joe Biden going to make it to Tuesday and have a debate?
Here's what I would be looking for.
If Joe Biden is not going to debate on Tuesday, this would be the tell.
There would be a lid on Joe Biden all the way through Tuesday.
If you see a lid on Biden That just clamps it down from today all the way through Tuesday?
He's probably not going to debate.
Because that would be sort of the tell that something else is going to happen.
That they have to replace him, or they're going to say, well, we need some time out, or maybe we don't debate.
As of yesterday, Nancy Pelosi was still saying that Biden shouldn't debate.
So you know that at the highest level of the Democrat Party, they are not too happy about the idea of him debating.
So we'll see.
I would say if you were to put the odds on it as of today, the odds of him making it to Tuesday, being on stage and debating are greater than 50%, probably.
Certainly greater than 50%, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, he can always say he's prepping, so he'll always have a cover story.
But if he puts the lid on for three days, I just think that would be a tell, that they have something else planned.
I would say there's maybe a 70% to 80% chance at this point he'll make it to the debate stage.
It could be that the Democrats have decided that he might get through a debate.
Now, a perfect situation would be he gets through one debate, doesn't do too badly, takes a few punches, but basically survives the debate.
What would be the smartest thing for the Biden campaign to do if he survives one debate?
You already know the answer.
If he survives one debate, he's definitely going to cancel the rest of them.
Because if he survives one, then it can be said that he can debate.
They can make the case.
But it would be crazy, it would just be crazy for them to let him have more than one if the first one goes okay.
If it even just goes a little bit okay, you've got to cancel the rest of them.
And it would be easy to do.
They would just say, Well, look at what President Trump did in the first debate.
All he did was lie.
So what would be the point of having another debate when all he's going to do is lie?
So it would be easy. They just say, we did one debate, we're good.
Now, let's say they do one debate and he just falls apart.
What happens then?
Well, then...
The Democrats just go ahead and replace them.
And they say, you know, okay, we see it now.
So we're going to make a quick change.
It's going to be Kamala probably top of the ticket.
Everything's the same. Kamala, Biden, You get the same package.
There's no real difference.
Biden picked Kamala as the vice president because they have so much in common.
If you think about it, nothing's really changed.
All you did is change the name, and we've been calling it Harris-Biden ticket anyway.
It's not that big a change.
Don't worry about it.
After the election, Biden will be replaced or something.
Maybe before, maybe after.
So... I think what will happen, here would be my best guess.
I think the Democrats are going to roll the dice on one debate.
I think it's a one debate bet.
If it doesn't go well, boom, they switch the ticket.
If it does go well, they cancel the rest of the debates and try to ride it.
That's what I would do. All right.
It's starting to look as if everyone except the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016.
Because the more we find out about what the Steele dossier was up to, and the more we find out about what Hunter Biden was up to, everything looks like they were all colluding with Russia.
Because the Hunter Biden connection with money coming in from a Russian oligarch, and of course the Steele dossier apparently was put together by an alleged Russian asset, was a major subsource for the Steele dossier.
Now, given that Brennan knew that, how is that not colluding with Russia?
If you're literally working with Russia on a common goal to overthrow the United States, which is the allegation against Brennan, how is that not colluding?
Now, you could say, well, the person we talked to wasn't necessarily having a conversation with Putin that week.
It might be just a Russian.
But I don't know if that's a thing, because the person that he was dealing with For information anyway, it was a suspected Russian asset, which means you would have connection to the top indirectly.
So, given that we have this new model of the world, that if you accuse somebody of something first, and it turns out you're the one who was doing it, People get exhausted by the original accusation,
and then when the truth comes out, oh, no, the person you accused was innocent all the time, completely innocent, but you, the accuser, were actually doing that crime like crazy, somehow it doesn't hurt them.
Because we are so easily rewired, or we're so easily, you know, We buy into the first story we hear, that if the first story is that you're accusing somebody of something, they can't even see you as the perpetrator.
For example, let's say you wanted to murder somebody.
This is what we've learned.
Instead of just going out and murdering them, you want to set the stage first.
So prior to murdering somebody, you should publicly accuse the person you plan to kill of being a murderer.
And you sell that, and the person will be like, what are you talking about?
I'm not murdering anybody.
I'm just an innocent citizen.
No, no, no.
You're a murderer.
And you get everybody to believe that they're a murderer, and then you murder them.
And people will have a hard time understanding that Because it will be too much of a leap to go all the way from, wait a minute, are you saying that the murderer was actually the one you murdered?
I can't hold that in my head.
It's too much of a leap.
I can't be that wrong about something.
Cognitive dissonance has just put up a wall.
I cannot see this new truth that you just murdered this innocent person.
I just can't even see it. My brain doesn't register it because I'm still invested in the fact that the person you murdered, I believed, was a murderer.
So if you don't think that's real, then you need to look into brains a little bit more because that is real.
Whoever accuses first has that permanent advantage, and it's hard to erase a first impression.
On Tucker Carlson the other night, he had an expert talking about how the United States is experiencing a, quote, color revolution.
I don't know all the details about what this, quote, color revolution is, but the idea is that we have people in the United States who, working for intelligence agencies in the past, have fomented revolution in other countries intentionally, and they did it by simply sowing chaos about the election process.
So if you can get the citizenry to not trust the election process...
Then you can have an actual revolution, because the system will break down.
The allegation is that the same people, literally the same people, the actual same people who did this professionally overseas to other countries, are literally, specifically, and even publicly Doing it right here, right now.
And that there's an active color revolution being perpetrated in this country by the book, publicly, obviously, while we watch it, right in front of us.
By the same people who are experts at doing this thing.
Now, do you believe that?
Does that sound like something you believe?
Here's my problem with it.
I don't know what they would think is their endgame.
If you're fomenting revolution in another country, your endgame is the revolution.
You just want to weaken that other country, and if you can get a new regime in that's friendly to your country, well, that would be an advantage.
But you don't really care that much if that other country just falls apart, because it's not your country.
So if you do a color revolution in another country and it just goes to hell, well, it wasn't your country.
So that's the kind of risk you could take with somebody else's country.
But would you take this risk with your own country?
Would you literally cause a violent revolution in your own country, thinking that would work out?
Who exactly would be smart enough to work in an intel organization and also think that you could have a violent revolution in the United States and that that would work out pretty well?
I have trouble understanding how this plan makes sense, which doesn't mean it's not happening.
I just don't understand it.
Lanny Davis.
A noted Democrat, Lenny Davis, he tweeted this.
Dear red states, we're leaving.
We've decided we're leaving.
We intend to form our own country.
We're taking the other blue states with us.
That includes Hawaii, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, blah, blah.
And I saw that, and I don't think that is a literal statement.
I think it's more of a hyperbolic sort of thing you say during the election period.
But I have to say, it's not a bad idea.
It's not a bad idea to at least test it.
Here's what I would love to see President Trump do.
He won't do this, so this would not be something you'd expect President Trump to do.
But if I were President, this is what I would do.
I would say to Black Lives Matter and all the people who are unhappy with systemic racism, I would say, how about this?
We don't know exactly what you want.
We don't know exactly how to fix it.
But we would love to give you a plot of land.
We'll find a place in some state that's friendly to this idea and create effectively like a Native American reservation where you'll just have your own rules and we'll let you run things the way you think things should be run.
And you can just build your own society.
You can take donations from Soros or whoever you want to take donations from.
There would be plenty of people who would donate.
And just try to build a functioning, non-systemic, racist society that is along the model that you would like to see for the rest of the country.
If it works, Maybe we'll take the good parts and try to expand it to the country.
If you find some parts of it don't work, well then we won't expand those parts to the rest of the country.
But why don't you take some land and just go do what you want.
Now, what would happen?
Would that actually happen?
Would anybody say, whoa, that is a pretty progressive idea?
You know, no matter what your plan is, it does make sense to test it first, and what an opportunity.
The United States is so open-minded, they're going to let us have our own land and just test our ideas and make this work.
We're all in. Do you think that'll happen?
No. No.
Because everything we've learned so far is there doesn't seem to be anybody involved with at least the leadership of the movement who is interested in solutions.
They're not interested in solutions.
If they were, everything would look different.
People who are interested in solutions do things like the following.
Hey, can we have a meeting?
Our people have some ideas.
We want to bounce them off of you.
We'll really float these up, see what people think, maybe get a budget for this, see what we can do.
Are you seeing that? No.
No, you're not. You see crazy stuff like defund the police, but we don't know exactly what that means.
You see, we've got to get rid of institutional racism, whatever that is, whatever it means to the person talking.
We have to tear down the system.
We've got to burn it all down.
What does any of that mean? Anybody who was working on solutions, it would look really, really obvious what that looked like.
You couldn't miss it. It would be people with actual plans, actual suggestions that were pretty specific.
Hey, how about this law?
How about this budget?
How about this area does this differently?
How about we train police in a different way?
That's what it would look like.
There's nothing like that happening.
So I think you would expose their movement for what it is by just giving them what they want and go to the high ground and say, we're going to give you everything you want.
But obviously, obviously, you're going to test it first because that's the way you would do anything.
There's nothing you wouldn't test first if you could, right?
Just common sense.
So give them what they want and the whole thing would fall apart.
That's a persuasion trick, by the way.
The persuasion trick is instead of arguing with people who appear to be irrational, Or maybe they're lying about what they want.
Either way, it looks the same.
Instead of arguing with them, that doesn't work.
If they're irrational, you can't argue with them.
And if they're lying about their true motives, you can't argue with that either, because they'll just keep lying.
So the thing you can do is agree with them and offer to give them what they're asking for.
And in the process of trying to accept everything they're asking for, it will become obvious it wasn't real.
So it's one way to solve it.
The big news, of course, is Amy Coney Barrett, who I love the fact that the public is deciding to call her ACB. Now, you think of AOC when you think of ACB, and I think these three named people need to be initials.
But there's something that happens when somebody gets a three-letter initial, be it AOC, be it JFK, be it LBJ, or be it anybody else, MLK, I guess. Anybody who gets a three-letter initial and RBG as well, anybody who gets an initial, three-initial name, is more important.
You don't think that should be the case, right?
And you say to yourself, well, just having a cool nickname doesn't really make you more than you were.
But it does. This is one of the things that I learned years ago in college.
So in college, some of us got nicknames.
I was one of them. My college roommate was big on giving people their nicknames.
So he was one guy who would assign everybody their nickname.
It was your nickname all the way through college.
It was like his superpower.
He had to give you a nickname that stuck, sort of Trump-like.
He gave me the nickname W, just the letter W, because I had once wore a shirt that had a big W on it for my school that I grew up on.
Wyndham was the name of the town.
And so for four years of college, my nickname was W. And there were people I knew pretty well who had no idea what my name was, because I was just W. And there were other people who had names.
There was a guy called The Cule, short for Molecule, because he would get so high that he called it getting small.
So he was just The Molecule and then The Cule.
Now, what happened was that the people who had cool nicknames actually came to be seen as a little bit cooler.
Now, this might have been my imagination.
You know, it's subjective, of course.
But it seemed to me that when people got a nickname...
They elevated to a level of just sort of an icon.
That's the wrong word.
I don't know. You became something like a symbol or something.
So there is something powerful about these initial nicknames.
They tend to go to people who have some higher level of importance.
All right. So the big story is that she's a member of this People of Prey is a charismatic covenant community.
So it's They're Catholic or Catholic friendly or Catholic leaning or mostly Catholic or something.
But they have some interesting views that includes allegedly, and I'm going to put a really big alleged on this because I'm very skeptical that this is happening currently.
It could be that they're being blamed or Painted with something that used to happen but doesn't anymore?
Because I'm not entirely believing that they speak in tongues.
Do you think that whatever place of worship that ACB goes to with her family, do you think they actually speak in tongues while she's there at the service?
I'm guessing not.
Which doesn't mean that some part of the organization has never done that or doesn't do it.
But I'm kind of guessing, probably not.
If I had to put money on it, I'd say something like, I feel like that's 70% chance she's never been in a room where that happened.
I could be wrong. Somebody says lid.
Is there a lid?
Now, it does make sense if you get at least one more lid before Tuesday or two, but if it's all lid, if it's lid all the way to Tuesday, that means something.
Alright, so I don't know how real this stuff is, but it's going to be the big topic.
Now, here's the beauty of it.
I think it was Tim Young pointed this out on Twitter.
He said, every time a Democrat calls a A cult member, which is what they're calling her, thousands of on-the-fence Catholics turned into Trump voters.
And I think that's got to be true.
If you're a practicing Catholic, And you hear the Democrats call somebody who also was associated with Catholicism, if you hear them call her a cult member, are you going to say to yourself, oh, no, no, that's the different kind?
You know, she's over there doing speaking in tongues, so that's a different kind.
So yeah, maybe that's a cult.
Not me. I'm just a regular Catholic, so that doesn't affect me.
I don't think people are wired that way.
I think if she's called a Catholic, And you happen to be called a Catholic, and somebody is making fun of that other kind of Catholic, you don't shade it and say, oh, that's not me, that's a different kind of Catholic.
I feel as if you're going to take that personally.
If you're a normal human being, you're going to take it personally.
So the beauty of Trump's trap is that the more they complain about her, The more votes he gets, I think.
I think it's pretty direct.
Here's the most fun part of the allegations against ACB's religion, is that, quote, one of its most notable features is the submissive role played by women, some of whom were called, quote, handmaids, at least until The Handmaid's Tale aired in 2017.
At that point, they started referring to them as women leaders.
Now, do you think that the phrase women leaders suggests submissive handmaids?
I got a feeling that we don't quite have the full story of what was going on there, because I don't know how you would take somebody that your own religion considers To use their word, submissive, and that you just rename them leaders?
And it's like, oh, it's okay.
We just renamed them leaders.
Still submissive, but we're just going to call them leaders?
I don't know if that's what's going on.
It feels more like, if I had to guess, and this is just a guess, pure speculation, that if you dug into this a little bit, You would find that whoever labeled their belief as a belief that women are submissive, I think you'd find maybe that's just not the case.
I think you would find that if submissive is even part of the belief, it may be in some specific way.
I don't think it means in life in general.
So I got a feeling that we don't know what's going on there.
But here's my take on this.
Suppose the left goes after her for this allegation, however true it is.
We don't know. And suppose they say, hey, we object to her in part because she has a belief that women should be submissive, what, to their husbands, maybe?
Maybe that's the context.
Whatever it is. And again, you should be really skeptical about any of this.
I don't know what the odds are that any of this is true.
But let's just talk it through.
Let's say, what if it is?
Isn't that sort of an LGBTQ problem?
Because wouldn't it simply be a lifestyle preference, if true, don't know if it is, but if true, that it was her preference or other people in the religious group, That they would be, and I hate to use the word because I think it's inaccurate, but submissive to their husbands.
Isn't that just a lifestyle choice?
Why is that anybody's business?
Because I don't believe they're saying that you and I should change what we're doing.
I don't believe they've ever gotten in my face and said, Scott, you need to change what you're doing.
Doesn't bother me. So if there's somebody who in their private life has a personal way of relating to somebody that's different than yours, how is that a problem?
And shouldn't you be the open-minded people who say, hey, sexuality is a big continuum, a rainbow, which is my belief.
My belief is that everybody is so different That grouping people into these arbitrary categories is suboptimal.
So I'm as pro-LGBTQ as anybody could ever be.
I'm super pro-LGBTQ. I'm extra.
I'm extra pro-LGBTQ. The more the better.
But it feels to me like, although this is not a sexual preference, that it's in that area where it should just be a personal choice.
Why is that anybody's business?
Bill Maher is making news again.
I don't know why this is news.
He's the most famous celebrity atheist in the world.
So he said some biting things about her religious beliefs.
Is that a surprise that he said that?
Here's what I would like.
Since everybody has worked up about President Trump saying that he would not guarantee a peaceful transfer of power...
Has anybody asked the Democratic leaders if they would commit to a peaceful continuance of the Trump administration should he win election?
How has that never been asked?
As soon as you hear it, I tweeted this morning, the moment you hear this, doesn't your brain say, uh, yeah, that's missing.
Nobody's asked Pelosi, can you commit to To a peaceful continuance of the Trump administration should he win the election?
That's a fair question.
Should they be asking Biden?
Should they be asking Kamala Harris?
Should they be asking Chuck Schumer?
Yeah. You should ask every one of those people to get on record.
Would you support and commit to A peaceful continuance of the administration should they win.
Nobody's asking.
If you don't see that asked by today, by the end of today, because there's always a Democrat floating around, you can ask this question.
It's Sunday, the notes.
What is today? Saturday? So you can certainly ask the question.
If you don't see that, you should just assume there's no such thing as news anymore, that it's just so broken that you should forget about it.
Let me do my impression of Chuck Schumer.
Is it my imagination or is Chuck Schumer the worst public speaker you've ever seen for a politician?
I don't know if I've ever seen a worse public speaker.
How in the world does he get his leadership job by being the worst public speaker?
Let me give you an impression of Chuck Schumer Giving a public statement.
Glasses down like this.
And President Trump, he is continuing to do bad things.
And bad things are done by the president because of his badness and his meanness.
And he doesn't believe in freedom.
He hates people.
He would like to destroy the economy for selfish, narcissistic reasons.
My God!
How does somebody like that become a leader?
Literally, all he does is read, and he doesn't even read sincerely.
He doesn't even read sincerely.
If you look at prominent politicians in either party, would you say that AOC, whether you disagree with her or agree with her, doesn't she look...
And come off as being sincere?
I would say so. She looks sincere to me.
That doesn't mean she is. But in terms of how she presents herself, looks sincere.
Does President Trump look sincere?
Yeah, he does.
Does Vice President Pence seem sincere when he speaks in public?
Totally. He seems 100% sincere.
Again, you don't know what people are thinking internally, but they certainly present themselves as sincere.
How about most of the politicians you see talking on television?
Do most of them look sincere?
A lot of them do.
Some don't. But I've never seen anybody who looked intentionally insincere before.
Schumer actually looks like he's not pretending to be serious.
He looks, with that smirk that he always has, he looks like I'm not even pretending that this is real.
And I feel like it's disrespectful to me as a citizen that you wouldn't pretend you mean what you're saying.
At least pretend you believe it.
Don't ask me to listen to it if you're not even going to pretend you believe it yourself.
And I don't think he pretends he believes it.
It is a weird look.
Pelosi is kind of a hybrid.
She does a little bit better job of acting sincere.
But the things she says are so ridiculous lately that you know they're not.
So that's different.
All right. Here's a question.
Was it Bill Maher who asked this of Bernie Sanders?
Listen to this question.
In the best possible world, Biden wins and takes office.
And then Bill Maher asks, what do we do with these Republicans?
Ones who showed that when it mattered, that they were willing to cast aside democracy.
That's pretty chilling, isn't it?
What are we going to do with them?
What do you mean, what are you going to do with them?
How about you don't do anything with them?
How about you go about your business?
How about you be happy if your team won?
You form a government and you try to run the country.
How about you don't round up the Republicans and punish them?
How about if you were to do that, that would be the end of the Republic?
Because, let me tell you, if conservatives or Republicans start getting rounded up and punished, because this question is, what do we do with them?
How do you interpret what do we do with them, other than there would be some active measures to do something?
What? Send us to Uyghur re-education camps?
What exactly does that look like?
So I think that is a little bit chilling.
I would remind you that I think there's no chance that the country will be ripped apart and that we won't exist in 2021.
By 2021, may or may not be by, you know, the end of January, but certainly in 2021 we'll have an actual president, we'll still have a country, And we're going to be kicking ass with the economy.
So it's going to be fine.
You're feeling about whether there's going to be a revolution or violence in the streets and all that.
There will be violence in the streets.
But there is now.
It probably won't be that different than every single Tuesday.
There's just violence in the streets every day now.
But that's sort of the new normal.
But we will be fine.
And the reason it seems more dangerous is just that the emotions are elevated for election period.
What would be the point of holding hearings for ACB and the Supreme Court confirmation?
In normal times...
It's a good process because you want to make sure you've vetted the candidates.
You want to give the public some credibility to say that, okay, all the people who really know what they're talking about, both left and right, have looked at this candidate.
They've wrestled with it.
They've pushed all the buttons and kicked all the tires.
In a normal situation, it's a good process.
I'm in favor of it.
But this is not a normal situation.
The Democrats have broadcast that they don't plan to treat it seriously.
Haven't they? Just fact check me on this.
Have the Democrats not broadcast in the clearest possible terms that they don't have any intention of treating this in a legitimate manner?
They just want to stop it and make a political point.
Now, under those conditions, I would apply the The Bill Barr rule.
You know, Bill Barr agreed to testify to Congress, and then they didn't let him talk.
They kept reclaiming their time.
So when additional people were requested by Nadler to go to Congress and testify, the Department of Justice said, no, because you've now signaled so clearly that you don't take the process seriously, it would be absurd.
For us to be involved in something that you've already told us won't be a serious process.
If there was some hope it would be serious, if there was some remote chance something good could come out of it for the country, even for us, well we might do it, but now that you've told us in no uncertain terms that you're not going to be serious about this, it's just going to be a stunt, why would we show up?
Likewise with the Supreme Court stuff, Given that the votes are there to confirm her, given that she was recently vetted for the job that she has, it would be just foolish to hold hearings.
So Lindsey Graham, I think he's still planning to hold hearings.
If you do, you should at least keep the option open of closing down the hearings right away if it doesn't work.
Because I don't want to waste time.
There's nothing to be gained.
As a citizen, there's just nothing to be gained by that process.
Just vote on it and get it over with.
All right, it could be an advantage to the president, though, to drag it down a little bit.
He might like the fight.
The Daily Mail, Anna Britton, is reporting that Boston University researchers found that COVID patients who had sufficient levels of vitamin D We're about 52% less likely to die after hospitalization.
So we have yet another study.
Now, this is not one of those randomized, controlled studies.
This is another one of those that just look at the data of things that have already happened.
So it's not that gold standard kind that you would like to really, really know that you know what you're talking about.
So we haven't reached that level of certainty.
And I worry a little bit about cause and effect, because it could be, That people who are in a weakened state also have less vitamin D, and it's just a coincidence.
So it just could be a coincidence.
What would be better would be we treated this group with vitamin D, and this group we didn't, and we got a different result.
That would be better. If it were randomized and controlled, it would be better.
Anyway, at about 42% of Americans are vitamin D deficient.
Now given that we do know that vitamin D is unambiguously good for you, and even if it didn't help you with coronavirus, we could all agree, science agrees, there's no debate about it really, vitamin D is good.
So the question was asked, why is Fauci not pushing vitamin D like crazy?
Shouldn't we be pushing vitamin D like crazy?
Is there anybody who is not taking vitamin D? I take vitamin D supplements every day.
And when it's not so smoky in California that I can't go outside, I also go outside every day to make sure I get a little bit of sun with my sunscreen on, etc.
But I feel as if the government should be pushing vitamin D. And I feel like that's a mistake, that it's not happening.
Because it's all upside, no downside.
Except I guess you could overdose on it if you went too far.
In Helsinki, they're testing COVID-sniffing dogs.
You've heard about this before.
But apparently it seems to be working, at least the early indications.
So the dog will just go up and sniff you, and it can tell even before you have symptoms, apparently.
It can tell if you have COVID. Dogs are unlikely to get COVID, so it's a little safer for them to be sniffing.
I guess cats have a bigger problem with it than dogs.
They can get it, but not as often.
So here's the question I asked to you.
Could science make something that smells like COVID but isn't dangerous?
And if they could make something that smells like COVID but isn't dangerous, could they distribute it to everybody who has a dog to train their dog?
Because I could train my dog, I think.
I mean, I don't know how sensitive the dog's nose has to be, but I'm guessing probably most dogs could do it.
You know, I know some dogs like bloodhounds are extra, extra good at smelling, but all dogs are pretty good at smelling.
If you could give me a little smell tab that smelled like COVID to a dog, it wouldn't smell like anything to me.
If I could train my dog with that, I think we'd be three weeks away from getting rid of coronavirus.
Because there are enough people with dogs who can train a dog, right?
How hard would it be to train a dog that gets a treat when they smell one thing and not another?
It would be the easiest thing in the world.
I could train my dog to sniff it, I'm pretty sure.
And she's now like the genius dog of dogs.
Somebody says, didn't I predict this?
I remember talking about it, but I believe I read about it as a possibility before I predicted it.
I would take credit for it if I thought I deserved it.
Boston Dynamics A robot making company.
They make that robot dog that looks so creepy.
Have you seen it? It's like this four-legged walking robot dog that is just so scary it's crazy.
But apparently now they're going into production and for $75,000 you can have your own robot dog called Spot.
And if you don't think this stuff's going to change everything, you got a new thing coming because this robot is going to change everything.
I mean, you could just drop these into dangerous neighborhoods.
Well, I suppose they'd get torn apart.
They'd probably get broken pretty quickly.
Here's a fact you probably didn't know.
I'll just throw this in here as a fun fact.
Did you know that the organizer of the Charlottesville Tiki Torch Racist March, named Richard Spencer, did you know that he endorses Joe Biden?
That's right. Joe Biden's primary claim...
Is that President Trump was sort of favorable to these racists in Charlottesville, but the guy who organized it, Richard Spencer, has publicly endorsed Joe Biden.
Now, does it mean anything?
Does it mean that Joe Biden is a racist because a racist endorsed him?
No. It doesn't work that way.
Nor does it work that way if some racist endorses President Trump.
It doesn't make the rest of his followers racist, and it doesn't make Trump racist.
It doesn't work that way.
People endorsing you don't turn you into them.
That's not a thing.
But it's fun to note that the biggest racist in the country, at least the one who's made the most trouble recently, endorses Biden.
So take that for what it's worth.
Here's a question for you.
Is the phrase African-American done?
It's over, isn't it?
I had been using the phrase just out of respect, because I like to use any name that any group wants to be called.
So whether you are an individual or a member of a group, if you have a preferred name that you want to be called, I'm all in.
No reason to make people mad.
If somebody has a preferred name and there's another name that makes them unhappy, don't use the unhappy one.
Use the one that makes them happy.
We're all trying to be in this country together, so I'm a big fan of using words that make people comfortable.
But it seems to me that because of Black Lives Matter, and that phrase becoming the dominant phrase, Black Lives Matter, it's not African American Lives Matter.
They don't do it that way.
It seems to me that, plus the fact that recently there was a decision to capitalize the B in black by a number of publications, which I also agree with, by the way.
I agree with it as an author.
I think capitalizing the B in black adds a little clarity to sentences, calls it out a little bit.
As long as you do the same thing with the W in white, I think it's just more clear.
It's better writing. So I'm in favor of that as well.
But it seems to me that black is now just the acceptable common word.
Everybody agree? Can we agree from today on that the African American is just unnecessary and it is no longer a term of respect because the word black, and if you write it capital B, is equal. Maybe better?
I don't know. Is it better or equal?
But in any case, I think going forward I'm going to discontinue the phrase African-American in favor of black.
If there's anybody black who has an objection to that, let me know.
Let me know. Because I would listen to that.
Here's a question for you that nobody asks.
You know, I talk about thinking past the sale.
There's... There's a gigantic thinking past the sail that's happening now, and it goes like this.
In this world, there are people who have bad luck.
They're just born that way, and it never gets better.
You're just born into a bad situation, and you're just having bad luck your whole life.
There are other people who are just born with everything.
They're born rich.
They're born healthy. They're born handsome, good-looking, beautiful.
Just all good. But suppose you're here.
You don't have great luck.
You don't have the worst luck.
But let's say you have a health problem.
Your parents are over alcoholics.
You've got PTSD. You've got some serious problems.
And they're not your fault.
Things you were born with.
Let's say you've got a physical disability.
There was an accident.
You went to war.
You got injured. It could be just hundreds of different things that would all fit into the category of bad luck.
The proposition that we're being given is that this person with the bad luck, if they were white, would owe this person who has slightly worse luck some money or reparations or some kind of consideration.
Or that the person who is not you has a preferred problem, that there's such a thing as a kind of bad luck that's the worst kind.
Now let's say you had the legacy of slavery that ripples through time, you find yourself in a bad neighborhood, there's crime and bad education, all kinds of problems there.
Do you have a thing called bad luck?
Yeah, you do.
Yeah, you do. That sounds pretty bad luck to me.
If racism and slavery is still affecting you, hundreds of years later, and you still haven't climbed out of it, and you've always been behind the eight ball or whatever, yeah, that's bad luck.
But why is your bad luck...
A preferred bad luck.
Now, not talking about myself, right?
So don't put me in the conversation, because I'm kind of over here at the moment.
Things are pretty good. So, you know, I'm in a good place.
I'm not complaining.
But there are a lot of you who are watching this, who are not black, who just didn't have a good life.
Things went wrong. Why is it that you're just an asshole?
But if you're over here and you've got bad luck, and it has a specific flavor of bad luck, it came from slavery, there's still systemic racism, etc., and that's the nature of your bad luck, why is yours favored?
Why, if I'm over here as a good luck person, why should I transfer some wealth and attention to somebody who's in the same neighborhood of bad luck, but not you?
What's wrong with you?
Why are you the asshole?
Why can't you get helped?
So, the thinking past the sale is that there's a favored kind of bad luck.
That some kind of bad luck is the good kind of bad luck, and there's another kind of bad luck that's the bad kind of bad luck.
But that's not a thing.
If you have bad luck, that's it.
That's the whole story. You got bad luck.
So I think we've been duped into thinking there's a favored kind of bad luck.
And that's quite distorting.
I asked on Twitter yesterday, I think I mentioned this, I asked people in my non-scientific Twitter poll, Is there something going on now?
I just saw my audience drop off.
There might be something happening in the news.
That 92% of people who answered my very unscientific poll, most of these would probably be Trump supporters if they follow me on Twitter, and 92% of them said they have less empathy for Black Lives Matter in 2020 because of the protests.
92% of them think worse of them.
How in the world is this working?
What is it that Black Lives Matter wants?
If what they wanted was respect, they're getting the opposite, aren't they?
They're getting the opposite of their stated intention.
And it's obvious, isn't it?
If you were just trying to be an objective observer, you came from another planet, you didn't have any bias, and you were just going to look at the planet from a distance and say, okay, how's this strategy going?
The Black Lives Matter people say they want to be considered full humans, I guess would be the best way to say it.
Not considered in any way some kind of a second-class citizen.
A completely legitimate thing to want, and I would certainly want them to have every bit of that.
But here's the thing.
If you looked at what they're doing, isn't what they're doing exactly the opposite of what you would do if your stated goal was to be treated with respect?
I don't know how you do things that guarantee you will be treated with disrespect while fighting for respect.
I just don't understand how that works.
So, I think that's not working.
Now, the other thing that is unstated...
Watch me state something that's unstated that makes you uncomfortable.
Are you ready? You hear about all these people who have decided to move out of the urban areas.
So people moving away from San Francisco, people moving out of New York City.
And whenever we tell this story, we always say, well, it's people getting away from crime.
Yeah, yeah, that's what it is.
That is accurate.
It is people who want to get away from crime.
But here's the thing that people aren't saying.
It is really white people getting away from black people.
Now, how bad does that sound?
That sounds as bad as it could possibly be.
But what other outcome could you imagine would happen?
If you were a well-off white person living in a city that was on fire every night because Black Lives Matter was protesting, would you say to yourself, I'll stay here?
Probably not. You would probably get as far as you could from Black Lives Matter supporters as you could because it doesn't look like they have a solution in mind.
It doesn't look like there's an end state where you say, okay, everything will be fine.
Once their demands are addressed, we'll be back to normal.
It doesn't look like that's a possibility.
It doesn't even look like it's on the table.
Not even an option.
So if you're a typical white person living in a city, what is your internal mental process?
You're probably thinking, I've got to get as far away from Black Lives Matter supporters as I can.
And in your mind, are you thinking that that also includes the Antifa and other white allies and protesters?
Maybe. But you're probably also thinking that you're getting away from black people.
So how did we get to this point?
Is that an advantage? Is it a better world that something like 40% of white people in the United States are actively thinking, how can I get further away from black people?
Because you know that's exactly what's happening.
That's not good.
That's just about as bad as things could be.
So we need to fix that.
But that's what's happening.
Nobody wants to say that out loud, but that's exactly what's happening.
President Trump, trying to make things better, has proposed the $500 Billion Black America Plan, which very cleverly designated both KKK and Antifa as terrorist organizations.
Now, in terms of political cleverness, this is really good.
The fact that he paired KKK, which So many people wanted designated as a terrorist organization.
I guess I agree with it in the sense that I wasn't too aware what the KKK was doing in recent years.
I will assume it's true that they were involved in terrorist things.
I mean, it feels like there must be somebody involved in that.
So I would say that that seems reasonable.
Most of the country would think that's pretty reasonable to designate the KKK as a terrorist organization.
But the fact that he could throw Antifa in there at the same time, because now these protesters are going to be part Black Lives Matter who have not been designated as domestic terrorists.
You could argue that some of them should be, but they haven't been.
But they are now marching with domestic terrorists.
Let me ask you this.
If you're marching with terrorists, are you not a terrorist?
Because I'm pretty sure I've been hearing since 2018 that if you, quote, marched with racists, you can't say you're not a racist.
And I completely agree.
In Charlottesville, the fine people were not marching with them.
They were in the same zip code, but they had nothing to do with the marchers.
They were a separate group.
But it is true.
Had those fine people, so-called fine people, if they had been physically marching with the Tiki Torch people, then I would certainly say, oh, those are not fine people.
Look at them. They're actually literally marching with racists, chanting racist stuff.
Of course I would condemn them, exactly the same as the people who Maybe have a membership in a racist organization.
There would be no difference. They'd be marching together.
But now, Antifa and Black Lives Matter are going to be marching together.
Literally marching.
Actually physically marching.
Every night. So the president has just fine-peopled Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
He just... Got away with calling Antifa a terrorist organization because he called the KKK a terrorist organization at the same time, which kind of makes it all okay.
You can't really argue with that.
As long as it's both, who argues?
So I don't think people quite see the brilliance of this move.
This is really, really smart.
One of the smartest plays I've ever seen in politics.
You know, because it kind of came out of left field and just suddenly this boom was right there.
And I was like, okay, that's really good.
Now, another part of this is they're making lynching a national hate crime.
Who disagrees?
Who disagrees with lynching being a national hate crime?
I don't know. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
Well, there's always somebody who disagrees.
But that seems pretty popular.
If President Trump is this big ol' racist, why is he the one suggesting that lynching be a national hate crime?
If he's a big ol' racist, why is he the one who just made the KKK a terrorist organization?
If he's the racist, why is he the one who did prison reform?
Why is he the one who supported the historically black colleges with their funding?
Why is he the one Who brags every day about low black unemployment.
I've got a feeling that Trump's black voter numbers are going to be just crazy.
This might be the biggest shock in the system, is the number of black people who are not crazy.
You know, the ones who look at this and say, I like the idea of Black Lives Matter.
I'm totally down with the philosophy.
I like everything about that.
I like that they're fighting for people like me.
I like that a lot.
But they don't seem to be heading in exactly a productive direction with their Marxism, etc.
I think you're going to see just a lot of black people say, how about we just don't go down that path?
Alright, so part of this is a $500 billion capital kind of thing.
We don't know the details, but apparently something to make capital more available.
It's all good stuff.
Good political play. Separately, in one poll, support for Black Lives Matter demonstrations have fallen from 54% three months ago to 39% today.
That's a big drop.
So Black Lives Matter Matter is now way underwater at 39% support.
So now the president has just tagged them with being domestic terrorists, because they're marching with domestic terrorists, the Antifa.
I don't think that's going to help them.
All right. You know, I could talk more, but I think...
Oh, let's talk about Joe Biden and his quote...
So there's a video from a few years ago, 2016 or something, where Joe Biden was talking to the troops and he said, quote, clap for that, you stupid bastards.
So he called the troops stupid bastards to their faces.
But he was obviously making a joke.
But it was sort of awkward the way he said it.
And but is that the kind of joke you make to the troops?
I accept that it's a joke.
And I'm certainly not the guy who's going to argue that a joke's not a joke.
Because I spend so much time saying, did you not realize the president was joking?
So I'm not going to reverse that just because I'm talking about Biden.
Biden was obviously joking, but is that the kind of joke that feels right to you?
Right? You can imagine a million kinds of jokes that are definitely jokes, and they're just intended as jokes, but they're still offensive.
What about an ethnic joke?
An ethnic joke is a joke, but it's really offensive.
Is it okay? Is it okay because it's a joke?
No, it's not okay, because in addition to being a joke, It's kind of offensive.
And I would say that even joking to the troops, calling them stupid bastards, that's not really as funny as it should be.
So I would criticize him for being awkward and offensive accidentally, but it was a joke.
All right, Gail King. Got into Pelosi a little bit and said that when Pelosi calls, refers to Trump and her henchmen, that she is just being as bad as Trump is.
And so even Gayle King is calling out Pelosi's language.