Episode 1140 Scott Adams: I Tell You Who Won the Debate and Why. And is Kim Jong-Un Alive?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Unconvincing proof-of-life, Kim Jong-Un
My Presidential debate analysis
Debate strategies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Did anything happen last night that's worth discussing?
Oh, I think so.
Oh, yes.
But first, before we get to the discussing part, wouldn't you like to get ready for that with a simultaneous sip?
I think you would. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker chalzer stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better, the unparalleled pleasure.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Well, of course we'll be talking about the debates, but a couple of little tidbits before that.
Number one, we all heard the story in the last 24 hours or so about National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe.
He declassified some information that indicated that Russia was aware that Hillary Clinton was trying to implicate Russia And some kind of collusion with Trump as part of a plan to take attention away from her email.
Now, as of this morning, Politico is reporting that it's fake news, that that's not actually something that happened.
Now, I believe that's not the final word, rather that The intelligence agencies look like maybe they have some evidence of this, but we shall see.
I remind you of the following 80-20 rule.
Are you ready? Here's the 80-20 rule of the month before Election Day.
It goes like this.
Any new story that happens in the month before election, if it's a new thing you haven't heard of before, A new twist on a thing would be the same thing.
There's an 80% chance it's not true.
Doesn't matter which side it comes from.
Doesn't matter what the topic is.
If it looks like it's good for anybody and bad for somebody else in terms of the election, you should figure just automatically there's an 80% chance it's not true.
So we'll see if that one's true.
I have to admit, it had the sound of not being true.
You know, if you had to place a bet on it, you said, okay, you're no expert, but I want you to place a bet on this thing.
And the thing is that Putin actually had a conversation, or the intelligence people did, over in Russia about Hillary Clinton trying to distract with a Russia collusion hoax.
What do I tell you about stories like that?
Are they a little bit too on the nose?
You know what I'm talking about?
A little bit too perfect?
Timing of the story is a little bit too good?
It might be true, but I would put a 20% chance on it if you want to know the odds.
It would be interesting if I were wrong on that.
Another story is that Kim Jong-un allegedly is holding a coronavirus meeting and they showed a still photograph of what Looked like it could have been the meeting, except everybody was sitting closely together with no masks on.
And it was a still photo, not a video.
Now, I know they have video.
Still photo is fine for some purposes.
But if you're trying to prove that your leader is still alive, a still photo of not wearing masks during a pandemic suggests that that photo was taken some time ago, as in prior to the pandemic, so maybe even months and months ago.
I don't know if there exists a verifiably current video of Kim Jong-un But I'm going to tell you that all signs are indicating he's not in charge or something.
But everything seems to suggest there's something going on there in North Korea.
So keep an eye on that.
I would wait for a sign of life there.
Alright, let's talk about the debate.
I feel terrible after watching the debate.
Did anybody have that reaction?
And, you know, some of it's personal.
I'm going to come right out and say it.
The president lost my vote last night.
The president lost my vote last night.
Now, that doesn't mean he can't get it back.
It doesn't mean that Biden would be a good president.
I don't think he would be. I think he'd be a disaster.
But here's my thing.
And I get what you're going to argue.
So before you jump in with the comments, you should trust that I will say your argument for you.
All right? So I'm not ignoring the argument.
I will say it for you.
Here's my problem.
In my mind, President Trump needed to do one thing to win the election.
Just one thing. He had one thing he needed to do.
And it wasn't make Biden go crazy.
It wasn't make strong points.
It wasn't be accurate.
It wasn't make a good case for coronavirus.
It wasn't any of those. He had one thing he needed to do.
Disavow white supremacy if asked.
That's it. Now, it would have been nice if he had gone at the fine people hoax To decry it as a hoax, he mumbled something under his breath when Chris Wallace asked him the question about, you know, would you disavow white supremacists and the militia?
Now, here's the part you're going to tell me like I don't know it.
But I'm going to tell you I know it, and watch.
It won't even stop you from telling me like I didn't just tell you.
That's just the way the world works.
I don't know why. Yes, I heard Trump say, um, sure.
He said the word sure in answer to would you disavow these groups.
He said it twice. So is it true that Trump did in fact indicate he disavows the white supremacists?
Yes. It is unambiguously true that the question was asked and answered.
He said sure. Would you disavow them?
Sure. But here's the thing.
When you saw it happen in real time, and then he quickly changed the subject to Antifa is bad, didn't you think to yourself, uh, half of the country is going to think you just supported white supremacy because of the way you answered it?
Okay. All the people in the comments are doing everything that I just said you would do.
I don't know how to stop you from doing it.
Everybody who's making a comment that says, he did disavow them, he said sure, that's what I just told you.
Did you not catch that?
That was the main point I was making, is for you not to do what you're doing now, which is tell me in the comments what I just told you.
I just told you, he said unambiguously, sure, and he answered the question.
Doesn't come close to being sufficient.
Not even close.
If you know that the way that's going to be taken is the wrong way, it's the wrong answer.
It doesn't matter that it's technically accurate.
It matters how you say it.
Let me give you an example.
Scott, do you disavow white supremacists?
Absolutely. Of course I disavow them.
I've disavowed them in the past.
I've disavowed them now.
And beyond that, I would disavow any racist group.
I would disavow Black Lives Matter, Antifa.
I would disavow anybody who's racist.
That's how you disavow white supremacists.
Let me tell you how you don't disavow white supremacists.
Hey, Scott, do you disavow a white supremacist?
Sure. Yeah, whatever.
But what about the weather?
What about the weather?
That's how you don't do it.
If you want to leave the impression that you really support them while technically saying you don't, do it exactly the way Trump did it.
The way he did it is exactly how you would communicate that you're really okay with him.
Now, I'm not going to make an assumption of what he's thinking.
That's the mistake everybody makes.
I'm not telling you that he has bad thoughts in his head.
What I'm telling you is that his performance was below the level that could earn my vote.
I can't vote for somebody who can't say in a full-throated way that he condemns white supremacy while he's running for the fucking presidency.
Okay? I'm off the ship.
Now, I'm not going to vote for Biden.
That would be crazy. He just doesn't earn my vote at the moment.
Now, Here's the interesting part.
We'll talk about some of the details of this as well.
Here's the interesting part.
There are two more debates.
What was the biggest problem that Trump had going into this debate?
I would say the biggest problem is that the expectation game was on a whack.
The expectation is that Trump would just destroy Biden.
That didn't happen.
In fact, I would say maybe his worst performance as a debater.
Maybe his worst performance.
But what does that do?
Well, it's going to give him a solid week of bad news, right?
But what about the next debate?
What happens at the next debate?
The expectation game just got flipped.
At the next debate, you're going to think to yourself, I know, Biden was solid enough.
He didn't fall over.
So he's solid enough.
He should be solid-ish for the second debate and the third.
That's your expectation now.
What do you expect about Trump?
Well, you certainly expect he's going to get that question again.
I don't know who the moderator is for the next debate.
But of course, I think they may have different question topics, but I feel like they're going to work that question in somehow, or at least Biden will work it in.
What will Trump do the second time he gets the question?
And you know it's just a layup, and he missed the layup this last time and other times.
Somebody says, did Biden earn my vote?
No, Biden did not earn my vote.
He did not. But the expectations are flipped now.
So what you might find is that Trump, if there are three debates, Trump actually has a weird advantage.
And if you don't see that yet, you will.
Because it's going to take a while.
People are still reveling in this debate.
They're not yet thinking too much about the next one.
The moment their minds switch to the next debate, there's going to be an oh shit moment.
Because the Democrats are going to say, oh shit, our expectations are sky high now.
That's not good. The odds that Biden will have, let's say, a A cognitive event in the next two debates?
It's non-zero.
I mean, I don't know what the odds are, but it's non-zero.
So it's got to make them a little bit nervous.
All right, let's talk about some of these specific things.
I don't believe Joe was wearing an earpiece or a wire.
There was no indication of an earpiece or a wire.
But of course, the Internet being the Internet, There are photos of what appears to be a wire under his lapel, but it's just a fold in his shirt.
So all over the internet there's this bad photo of something that looks like a wire, but it's just a wrinkle.
And then there's something that looks like it's coming out of his sleeve, but apparently he wears a rosary around his wrist for his son or something.
So... So I would say that that is debunked.
I don't think there was any wire or earpiece.
I would say that Trump was prepared.
It looked like he was very prepared.
I think he blew it, in my opinion, but it looked like he was prepared.
So that's good news. Here's the frame that was at Ryan Lizza.
I think he's the one who pointed it out.
And it was the first time I'd ever noticed But once you notice it, you can't unnotice it.
And it goes like this. When Trump debates, he has a strong preference for offense.
So even his defense is sort of an offense.
So if somebody says, you murdered a baby.
What Trump doesn't do as often as you think he ought to is to start off by saying, that's not true.
I didn't murder a baby.
That's what you would do, right?
If you were in a debate and the other person said, well, you murdered a baby, don't you think your first instinct would be to say, well, that's not true.
I didn't murder a baby.
If you watch Trump long enough, and this is what Ryan Lizza noticed, and he called it out as a positive in terms of technique.
It might be. It might be.
But I think there's an exception to it.
And so if somebody says, Trump, you murdered a baby...
Instead of saying, I did not murder a baby, he will say, you killed a hippopotamus or something.
He'll just accuse you of something worse.
So, for example, and I think this is a good technique.
So when Biden was saying, you did a bad job on coronavirus and killed over 200,000 people.
It's a ridiculous claim that they're all because of Trump, right?
But Trump, instead of trying to defend it, which probably would be a strategic mistake, he says, you would have done worse, and here's why.
He says, you know, you wouldn't have closed the border, etc.
That's not bad.
It's not bad. I think he's weak on coronavirus, so there's not like a kill shot you can do to get out of that.
But it probably is about as good as you can do...
In the time constraint, in the format of a debate, to simply say, you would have done worse.
Because how can you prove that's not true?
It's an unprovable statement.
That might be true.
Might be untrue.
Don't know. So as a debate technique, it's probably pretty strong.
But here's where it fails.
Where it fails is if you're accused of calling neo-Nazis fine people.
All Trump did was sort of mumble something about it wasn't true, but he never returned to the point.
He never defended himself against the accusation that he called the neo-Nazis fine people, which is not true.
He never did it. So how hard would it be to defend yourself against something that's so well documented?
And I think what he mumbled when Biden was still talking was something like, read the rest of the statement.
Because that's the defense.
The rest of his statement that they always leave out is where he said, he clarified that he was condemning the neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
So, to let that go, just because your method is always to attack, I feel like that should have been an exception.
And honestly, let me depart a little bit from...
Objective analysis.
Now, I don't think anybody can really be objective about any of this stuff, so it's sort of ridiculous to claim that you're completely objective.
Nobody can achieve that at the moment.
But I want to confess a little bit of emotional attachment.
I felt that I was personally thrown under the bus by the president last night.
It felt personal.
Because I've spent A tremendous amount of my personal capital explaining to the world that the Fine People hoax was a hoax, and obviously he's condemned all these groups.
A number of times you'll see compilation clips of him condemning those same groups.
So it's not like he hasn't done it plenty of times.
But when the Fine People hoax came up again, I literally stood up from the couch and said, here it is.
Here's the moment where Trump just has to say, you know, you based your entire campaign on that lie.
I just encourage everybody to look at the transcript, and you'll see that the part that they cut out is the part where I clarified that I'm contemning those groups.
If he had said that, I would have said, I'm really happy that I've spent so much of my time and my personal credibility, a great deal of money.
I would say that my personal financial situation is way worse, way worse, because of supporting the president.
There's no question about that.
And I thought, it's so obvious what you should say in this situation.
And then he just didn't.
And I thought to myself, I really feel abused.
Honestly. I was actually...
I took it personally.
That wasn't politics anymore.
That was not politics anymore.
That was me personally.
And I feel like he screwed me.
Personally. And then I had to sit there stewing in that.
And then this white nationalist, the white supremacist question comes up.
And he botched it.
It was a layup.
It was free money sitting on the fucking table, and he left it there.
And he left me on that table, too.
He left me just exposed.
So he lost my vote.
He lost my vote.
Can he get it back? Yeah.
All he'd have to do is fix that.
I mean, how hard is it to fix it?
Well, apparently it's pretty fucking hard for him because he's taken three years since Charlottesville to He hasn't fucking fixed it yet.
Easiest fucking thing he could ever fix.
I take it personally.
So, those of you who are disagreeing with me and saying blah blah blah, Scott, you don't understand, blah blah blah blah, no, this is personal.
I'm not talking about the election anymore.
I'm not talking about you. I'm not trying to change your mind.
I don't expect you to come over to my point of view.
I'm not even trying to. I'm telling you, I feel abused by that.
I feel actually abused by that.
And don't ask me to be happy about it.
Because I'm not going to be.
Alright. Let's talk about what went right or wrong.
So Trump took the approach of just ignoring the rules and sort of trying to dominate the situation and trying to be the more powerful person so that there would be a contrast I think the fact that he completely abused the rules and took over the situation, I didn't mind that at all, actually.
It was a hot mess, but that's what we signed up for, right?
The reason... The reason that I waited for two hours before the debate, I couldn't even leave my living room.
I didn't want to miss the first minute, so I was there like hours early to my own living room.
And it's what I wanted to see.
I wanted to see a spectacle.
I wanted to see a gunfight.
I wanted to see pigs wrestling.
And that's what I got.
So as a technique for potentially pushing Biden into a mistake, I think it was strong.
I think it was pretty strong.
So I'm going to give him an A-plus for energy, power, dominance.
And it's hard to know how much that counts, right?
Because there are lots of other things that happened, so you can't really analyze these things in isolation.
Everybody, of course, is going to be arguing about how he was so impolite and whatever, but that's all baked in.
I would argue that what we saw with Trump taking over the room, essentially just ignoring all the rules and having his way with it, I would argue that's more of a feature than a bug.
Meaning that that's closer to the reason he got elected than it is closer to a reason not to be elected.
That power of personality was a big part of his appeal, and I think he did that.
He did that well, actually.
Let's see. I would say that both candidates lied about almost everything.
I think it would be ridiculous to say that the president was the liar that night.
I would guess that 80% of what the president said was not true, roughly speaking.
And I think that 80% of what Biden said was objectively not true.
He did the bleach hoax.
He did the, you know, the find people hoax.
He did the calling soldiers losers hoax.
I mean, mostly Biden was full of hoaxes.
And by the way, what was Trump's response to the bleach hoax?
He said he was being sarcastic.
Even I don't believe that.
You know, I'm inclined to be favorable to the president's, you know, perspective on things.
But even I don't believe he was being sarcastic.
What he was doing was talking about light technology, because that was the whole context.
And that was a real thing, and it was really being tested.
So he let that go, too.
But again, you have to look at it in the context of his debate strategy, which is he doesn't go after, he doesn't spend a lot of time Defending an accusation.
Now, Biden had a really good answer to something.
So when Trump was pressing Biden about the $3.5 million from the, I guess, the widowed ex-wife of the mayor of Moscow, that's one of those accusations that's really damning.
It's a really damning accusation.
And the way Biden dealt with it, I would have to say, was really good.
Now, I don't know if it's true.
I don't know if what he said is accurate.
But in terms of a debate strategy, it was well done.
And it went like this. The president said, blah, blah, blah.
You know, Hunter Biden took that 3.5 million from a Russian.
And Biden's response was, that has been discredited.
That's pretty good. Because as soon as he gets into the weeds about it, he loses, right?
So Biden can't get into the weeds.
He can't ignore it.
That would be a bad mistake.
So the fastest thing you can say about it to dismiss it is probably good debate strategy in this concept.
So simply being able to say it's disavowed, and I don't know if that's true.
Do you? I haven't seen any disavowing of it.
Personally, I have not seen even an attempt at disavowing it.
But the fact that he said it, that's disavowed, I thought, that's not bad as a technique.
Probably not true that it's disavowed, but it's a good technique.
It seems that most of the Most of the chatter about last night is about Chris Wallace.
And I totally get what everybody says, that it looks like Chris Wallace was being tougher on Trump.
Would you all agree? Can we all agree that it looked like Chris Wallace was being tougher on Trump?
Everybody's on the same page, right?
It looked like that.
Now, does that also imply that because he was tougher on Trump, Is it therefore true that he didn't do a good job?
Because that's where I might depart from your opinion.
He was definitely tougher on Trump.
No question about it.
And he's obviously not a big Trump supporter.
That's pretty clear.
But it's also why he got the job.
The reason that Chris Wallace was there, and out of the hundreds of possible people who could have been the moderator, the reason he got picked It's because he can do that.
He can go at the president, and he can go at the other side.
There aren't that many people who can.
So, you're going to hate this, but I think he did a great job.
Sorry. I know you hate it.
You hate it because he was tougher on the president, and he totally was.
But I'm okay with that, and here's why.
Part of why he was tougher on the president is the president was giving him more material to be tough on.
The president was more interrupty, etc.
And so there was just more to deal with.
But there were other things about, you know, some people saying he maybe helped Biden by describing Biden's own energy plan, etc.
Here's my take. All of that other stuff that looked like he was a little pro-Biden and a little bit anti-Trump, all of that stuff It should have been easy for Trump to dismiss.
There was nothing that Chris Wallace added to the process that should not have been just simple for Trump to handle.
The fact that Trump didn't handle it well and blew the, you know, he botched the white supremacist question, the fact that he did that is not really Chris Wallace's fault.
That is 100% on Trump.
And to put that on Chris Wallace, unfair.
Now, I was trying to imagine, as I was watching Chris Wallace try to get control of these people who were uncontrollable, mostly Trump, I thought to myself, I had a hard time imagining some other journalist, is that what you want to call him, a journalist or TV host, whatever?
I had a hard time imagining anybody else doing that better.
Because Chris Wallace does have a...
A forceful personality.
And he does have credibility.
He has gravitas.
And I thought he did as good as a person could do under that situation.
I would give him a very high mark, actually, for that night.
Because I don't think anybody could have done it better, given the circumstance.
I know I'm disappointing you today.
But that's the way it goes sometimes.
Now, one of the biggest...
Which we don't know how it'll play out yet, is that Trump did get Biden to disavow the Green New Deal.
Somebody says, are you a liberal?
I'm left of Bernie, but I typically support the president.
So that might matter.
Do you think the Green New Deal people are happy with that?
Do you think they said to themselves, hey, he disavowed us?
Well, there's an extra detail there.
Apparently on the Biden website, it says that he appreciates the framework.
His website says that the Green New Deal is, quote, a crucial framework.
Now, when Joe Biden's website says the Green New Deal is a crucial framework...
But then he goes on to say, but my deal is not that.
It's the Biden deal.
Is he being inconsistent?
Is it a lie to have on his website that the Green New Deal is a crucial framework, but at the same time he's saying I'm doing something that's my own thing?
It's not incompatible.
It's not incompatible at all.
In fact, it's what he's been saying all along, which is it's sort of a good framework But if you want to stay practical and do things that can really be done, it looks more like a Biden plan.
It's not too far off.
But will his own side see it that way?
And that's the part that is a question.
If the AOCs and the Bernie supporters think that they've been thrown under the bus...
Or sold a bill of goods, they might stay home.
So that might be the biggest thing that came out of this.
It's entirely possible that the only thing that changed is some green new dealers decided that they weren't excited about him anymore.
But, that said, they're still probably like him better than Trump if they were Green New Deal-ish.
Because at least you get a little bit of, you know, the flavor of the crucial framework of Green New Deal.
That's better than none, right?
So I suppose we'll have to wait on that.
All right. One of Biden's worst answers was when he was asked why he's not speaking out about the violence in the streets.
He said, quote, I don't hold public office.
That's a really weak answer.
That is really weak.
And neither candidate disavowed violence last night.
Think about that.
Think about the fact that Biden would not disavow Antifa, acted like it didn't exist.
Trump was, you know, we already talked about that, wasn't...
Wasn't exactly anti-violence himself.
And these are the two guys running for president.
And neither one of them could say full-throatedly that all violence is bad.
Neither of them could say full-throatedly that all forms of racism are bad.
They both wanted to pick their shots.
They're completely unqualified, in my opinion.
And that's just about the most basic thing you've got to get right.
Is to be against domestic violence.
If you can't be against domestic violence in a full-throated, unambiguous way that everybody can hear, you're not qualified to be president.
So neither Biden nor Trump met that standard last night.
So you can't be too happy about that.
And then President Trump, he kind of went...
Who knows what he was talking about with the Proud Boys?
So, you all heard it, I don't need to repeat it, when Chris Wallace was asking about denouncing racists and whatever, and he said, give me some names, and that I don't know if Chris Wallace said Proud Boys first, or Trump did, I think Wallace did, and then he said, then Trump leapt on the Proud Boy question, and he said they should stand back and stand by.
Now, of course, that's open for interpretation.
Stand back sounds good, because that's, you know, don't be violent.
So far, so good.
But what does stand by mean?
Stand by kind of suggests that maybe, and he went on to say that somebody's got to stop the violence.
I feel as though he was giving them a green light to mix it up with Antifa.
That's what I thought.
Now, I'm not sure I have a big problem with that, to be honest.
Because I have been saying for a while that if law enforcement decides to not take part in ending violence, for whatever reason, they decide they don't want to do that, you should expect citizens to come in and fill the gap.
There's no other way that could go.
If the police won't stop violence, there will be some informal citizen thing that happens.
Something's going to happen. And I would say that if you get enough people who are willing to stop the violence...
Even if it takes some violence to do it, we might be at a point where a little bit of violence is called for.
I'm not going to say that it would be a great idea.
It's more like a prediction that it's just the way it's going to go.
Unless something else happens, such as better law enforcement.
Let's see...
Biden actually said that Antifa is an idea, not an organization.
That is disqualifying.
Completely disqualifying to say that Antifa isn't an organization.
What can you say about that other than that?
It's just disqualifying.
Trump called the critical race theory training racist.
I agree with that characterization, but I don't think he did a good job...
Given the time constraint and the format of a debate, it takes a little explaining why that's true.
It is true, but it takes a little explaining, and a debate's the wrong place to do that.
So I don't think he nailed that.
It would be great if he could come up with some shorter way to make that point and just be able to drop that point and walk to his next point.
So he'd probably do that better in the next debate.
Biden said something...
That I thought was really good.
And it was this.
When he was talking about whether he would accept the winner after the election, given that there would be some uncertainty about the quality of the vote, Biden said this, quote, That's just about a perfect statement right there.
I don't know how practiced that was, but it's kind of perfect.
Because what he did was, he took all the energy out of the question.
Once the winner is declared, that will be the end of it.
That statement, that will be the end of it, that is...
That is such a good persuasion statement that it makes me think some kind of expert in persuasion may have coached him on that a little bit.
Because that will be the end of it is a deflating statement that works really well.
It wasn't like we're going to fight this to the end.
We'll take every measure that we can.
It's going to be a battle, etc.
He just said the most American thing you could ever say.
This is the most American statement anybody's ever said.
Once the winner is declared, after the ballots are counted, that will be the end of it.
And I have to say that in that moment, I felt something like leadership from Biden.
There was something like leadership in that.
Because I thought to myself, yeah, that is it.
Once the ballots are counted, now of course there's going to be some controversy about what does it mean to be counted and when are they counted and how accurate they are, but I like the notion.
I like the leadership notion that there will be an end and that when we reach the end, that's the end of it.
There's something really good about that.
When we get to the end, that's the end of it.
It's not going to go on forever.
That's the end of it. I like that.
It's very American. And I know that Trump is keeping his options open, and that probably makes sense strategically, but it was a good statement.
Here's something from The Hill they tweeted today.
So The Hill tweeted, Biden and Trump differ greatly on integrity of mail-in ballots.
And they quote Joe Biden as saying, There is no evidence at all that mail-in ballots are a source of being manipulated and cheating.
And then they quote President Trump as saying, this is going to be a fraud like you've never seen.
So their characterization of those two statements is that there's a great difference on integrity of the election.
Is that what you heard? Because that's not what I hear.
To me, I hear two sentences that are completely compatible.
Let me read them again.
One, there is no evidence at all that mail-in ballots are a source of being Our source of being manipulated and cheating.
That's true. It's true.
We don't have evidence of the future.
Because we only have evidence of things which have happened in the past.
And in the past, have we ever done mass unsolicited mail-ins to states that have not practiced it and cleaned up their database?
No. No.
So how could we have evidence of something that hasn't happened?
Is it true that in the past it doesn't seem like it was a gigantic problem?
There were individual problems that we found.
The Ilhan Omar thing with Minneapolis and Project Veritas, they did find that there was definitely a problem in the past, but we don't know if that was widespread.
So do you know?
Do you know if that would have changed the election?
Do you know if it was widespread?
Do you know if it was happening everywhere?
Would it be fair to say there is no evidence of this problem being widespread?
There is certainly evidence of individual problems.
But is there any evidence that there were whole elections changed in the past?
Yeah, there might be a little evidence, but I would say that's a fairly safe statement about the past.
When Trump talks about the fraud of this election, Is he talking about the past?
He is not.
One man is talking about the past and making a true statement that it hasn't been a giant problem in the past.
The future won't look like the past because we haven't done it this way before.
Nobody knows. If you've never done it this way and the stakes are sky high and you think Hitler might get re-elected, do you think?
Do you think this is right for For election mischief?
Yes! Yes!
Of course it is!
So every idiot who says that Biden and Trump disagree about the election integrity is just talking about two different topics.
The past? Not too bad.
The future? Probably a giant clusterfuck.
Those two ideas are not in conflict.
Let me put it another way.
Could you say to the people on the left, climate change is no risk in the future because the sea level hasn't drowned us in the past?
Same argument, right?
The same argument. We didn't die in the past, so therefore, how could we die in the future?
It doesn't even make sense.
Yeah, it does make sense.
Because you know what? The past is different.
It's different. Things are different.
So, how about nobody ever died from drinking coffee, so therefore you should be able to snort as much fentanyl as you want without dying.
Logically, right? If nobody ever died from drinking coffee, Doesn't it logically make sense that you can't die from ingesting large quantities of poison?
That's just common sense.
No, they're different situations.
So, this mail-in vote thing just bugs the crap out of me.
Alright. Was Biden talking about defunding the police?
He was a little weak on that.
One of the things he was super weak on is when Trump challenged Biden to name any law enforcement group that was backing him.
Now, I don't know if it's true that there are no law enforcement groups backing Biden.
Is that actually true?
I don't know. Somebody says you're losing my vote, Scott.
So I know that this doesn't make you happy today, right?
But I can't lie to you.
What do you want me to do?
Get up here and just lie to you?
To make you happy?
Can't do that. Someone tells Scott he's embarrassing himself.
Oh, you don't have to do that.
I'll just block you and then...
Then you don't have to worry about it.
Goodbye. Anybody else want to get blocked?
I've got a feeling we'll be doing a lot of blocking today.
Ah, somebody says fentanyl is not caffeine.
You're right. You're right.
Fentanyl is not caffeine.
So it's almost as if you shouldn't compare those two.
Same as...
Solicited mail-in votes versus mass, untested, unclean databases, unsolicited votes.
It's almost like they're different.
That would be the point.
Yeah, it's a little disconcerting.
Yeah.
All right. Now, I don't think that you would pay attention to me if you knew that I was just going to back...
Back the president no matter what he did.
I don't think...
Would you even find any value in this if you knew what I was going to say before I said it?
No, you wouldn't. Your true color...
I'm going to block you for that.
Whoever said, your true color, you're gone.
Alright, anybody else want to make it personal?
Alright. I'm just looking at your...
Oh, the slaughter meter update?
I'd say the slaughter meter is down to 50%.
50-50.
At the moment, I would say it's a toss-up.
I think the president heard himself last night.
But Biden is so weak that anything could happen.
Somebody says, you seem very emotional.
Yeah, that's the way I feel.
You would be accurate about that.
All right.
Looks like I got rid of all the bad people, so thank you for staying around.
Oh, packing the court. Yeah, Biden refused to say he wouldn't pack the court.
My feeling is that probably doesn't make any difference.
I don't think that court packing thing...
It's going to be a big variable.
Just because people don't know what to think about it, I think.
They just don't know which way to go on that.
Biden's laugh. Yeah, did you see Biden's crazy smile?
That was pretty funny. Yeah, Biden's smile was hilarious.
Alright, people are saying run for governor.
I would be a terrible governor.
You wouldn't want me as governor.
I think I would be better outside that realm.
It would be a waste of my talents.
Will there be more debates?
Oh, you know, if the Biden campaign decided to cancel the other two debates, and they said the reason they were doing it is because Trump doesn't play fair, And they just take their performance from this one and say, you know, we're going to live or die on that first debate.
That probably would be a reasonable strategy.
Because Trump's best hope is to have a good second and third debate.
Which, by the way, is not unexpected that the first debate the incumbent does poorly.
You've been hearing a lot of reporting The incumbent tends to be a little sloppy on the first debate, but might improve as we go.
But I haven't seen them commit to that.
They probably need to feel it out a little bit.
Here's what I'd expect. I would expect that the Democrat helpers and the media will try to feel that out a little bit and try to see how the public feels about it.
