Episode 1150 Scott Adams: Biden and Kim Jong-Un and Hillary Email
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Trump's appropriate usage of the "F bomb"
A coup without penalty...everyone walks?
The big unexplained variable in COVID19 deaths
Chris Christie already released from hospital
Kim Jong-Un interesting new speech video
Despicable Keith Olbermann
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, with any luck, we will have spectacular sound, both on Periscope and YouTube.
Can somebody tell me if they can hear me?
Hope you can. Well, it looks like you can.
Good, good, good, good.
Let's see if this all works out.
Now, who texts me when they know That I'm about to go on Periscope.
All right. Let's talk about all the things.
It's a wonderful day.
Might be one of the best days ever.
At least it's starting that way, because you're here with me.
Let me turn off that phone.
All right. Everybody, are you ready for the best part of the day?
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now. All you need is a cup or muggerin.
Let me start. Hold on.
Hold on. I'm going to completely back up.
All right. Don't text me when I'm starting to Periscope, please.
So if anybody's listening to me and you're thinking, hey, you know what would be a good time to text Scott?
It would be exactly when he's starting the simultaneous SIP, because I'm way too dumb to turn off my phone, it turns out.
But I'm going to fix that problem.
All right. We've got multiple devices here.
It's hard to coordinate.
All right. We're restarting.
Serenity now. How would you like to have the Simultaneous Sip?
I know you would, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or sign, a canteen drink or flaccid vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and watch how much better you feel after you drink this.
Go. Yeah?
Yeah? I was right, wasn't I? As soon as you took that sip, things started looking better, didn't they?
Quite remarkable if you think about it.
Let's talk about what's going on in the world.
So yesterday I did a sound check just to see if I could get my microphone working.
And I got 48,000 views on a video that just said sound test only.
That's all I said. And it was nothing but a test of my audio, and I got 48,000 views.
So that tells you how worked up everybody is about the election.
Because in a normal time, that would have been some tiny fraction of that.
People were just curious.
But we've got a lot going on today.
So I tweeted a video by Russell Brand.
You all know Russell Brand, famous comedian slash actor.
And he does a take on Trump that is very similar to mine.
But it's interesting to hear it come from somebody else, and it's interesting to hear it come from somebody in another country.
So Russell Brand is sitting over there in the UK, and his take on Trump is so close to mine in terms of talking about his communication style and how he can simplify and cut right to the point and get to the heart of the matter.
So you ought to see that.
First of all, he's very entertaining, and then...
Second, the message will look familiar.
I think it was from yesterday, but I saw yesterday, in which he has to cough while he's giving his speech, and he pulls his mask down and he coughs into his hand.
And I thought to myself, was it Dr.
Fauci or Dr.
Birx who taught him that if he needs to cough, he needs to pull his mask down and cough directly into his hand?
And I'm thinking, I don't know if that was the best example of following the expert advice, but every time somebody coughs in today's world, you're automatically scared to death.
Do you remember when if somebody coughed around you, you'd say to yourself, huh, it looks like somebody's coughing.
There's a small chance that I might catch a cold, you might have said to yourself.
But now if somebody coughs anywhere within 100 yards of me, the first thing I think is, I might be dead now.
I might be dead.
Could be gone. So just watching Biden cough is like wondering if you're seeing the future.
Because, admit it, we don't want to see Biden or anybody else get coronavirus because we're good people.
So we don't want anything bad to happen to anybody.
That's just a general rule of my periscopes.
But that said, the simulation, or whatever the heck this universe is, kind of wants things to be interesting this year.
So 2020 is the year that everything interesting is going to happen, apparently.
So under that condition, what are the odds that Joe Biden would catch coronavirus?
It would be completely transforming, wouldn't it?
Because the biggest complaint about Trump is that he can't even follow basic hygiene and recommendations, and look what happened.
He got the coronavirus.
But what would happen if the day before Election Day, just putting that out there, what would happen if the day before Election Day, you heard that Joe Biden, who had apparently followed every recommendation, Also got the coronavirus.
What would that do to the entire narrative?
It would kind of, you know, it wouldn't, because it's anecdotal and it's just one example of one person, it shouldn't mean anything.
Because we know the coronavirus can spread pretty easily.
It shouldn't mean anything.
But the way our brains are wired, it would completely change how you see it.
So if Joe Biden isn't doing absolutely everything he can to stay away from that coronavirus for the next few weeks, you ought to kick it up a notch.
The other possibility, imagine Joe Biden winning the election, immediately getting coronavirus and being less capable of recovering.
Then you've got President Kamala Harris.
So I recommended that President Trump offer to debate Kamala Harris.
Now, what's the first thing that you think when you hear that?
You think, oh, that's just sort of a funny suggestion.
You know, you would never have the presidential candidate debate a vice presidential candidate.
Doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
Except it does, because Biden has even said he's looking to be a transitional candidate, which means a one-term president, which means he'd be lucky if he serves one term.
So, don't you want to see the difference between Trump and Kamala Harris?
Because that might be, you know, you could put odds on it, 20%, I don't know, 20% chance that she might actually be a sitting president in the next four years, something like that.
I think that would be entirely legitimate for the public.
Now, as I've said before, Trump tends to do things that you think, well, you can't do that.
That's never been done before, so obviously that will never be, oh, he just did it.
Well, it would be too provocative to do, okay, he just did it.
That's the story of Trump, right?
If it makes sense, But you're still not supposed to do it.
For some reason it doesn't make a lot of sense.
You'll do it. Because if it makes sense to do it, why not do it?
That's one of the benefits he brings to the job.
It was a focus group out in Michigan, swing voters.
And they said that Harris, one of them said, Harris is why she was going to vote for Trump.
Because, quote, Biden's not going to make it four years, so Kamala Harris is going to be president.
And I have zero trust she can be president.
So there are Democrats, because I guess some people agreed with this thought in the focus group, so there are at least some Democrats who would say, yeah, I prefer Joe Biden, but I don't prefer Kamala Harris.
And if you think about it, that should be obvious, because Kamala Harris didn't even make it very far in the primaries.
So we know Kamala Harris is not terribly popular with her own side.
And if they come to see her as the primary candidate, that might make a difference.
So, as I said before, if Joe Biden coughs in public maybe one more time, it's really going to look like a President Kamala Harris situation.
And then, you know, President Trump has every right, it would be completely reasonable, to offer to debate Kamala Harris.
I'm not even joking about that.
That is a completely legitimate request.
I don't think it'll happen, but it would be legitimate.
So Trump was on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday, and he dropped the F-bomb.
And one of the things I mentioned to you is that when I was on Prednizone, I mentioned it too often, but it's a type of steroid.
As the president was on a type of steroid, he says he's off all meds now, but take that with a grain of salt.
I don't know what it means to be off all meds because some of them linger in your body.
But one of the things I found is that I got real aggressive and I couldn't stop swearing.
On prednisone. And some of you saw it in real time, right?
I was telling you how I was feeling, and then I was modeling it, and none of that was fake.
That was really, really who I became, and I was just telling you as it happened.
And hearing the President of the United States drop an F-bomb in front of the whole world on a Rush Limbaugh show, That, again, was that little bit of a red flag that says, would he do that under normal circumstances?
He might. It's entirely possible, right?
So you can't say, okay, there's your smoking gun.
He used that F word.
He never would have done that if not for the meds he was on.
With Trump, you can't really say that because he's unpredictable in exactly that way.
But it certainly raised this eyebrow.
When I heard it, it was like, sounds a little familiar.
I know what it's like to feel a little aggressive and maybe drop some F-bombs that you wouldn't under normal circumstances.
But I did like the way he did it.
You know, I've often said that there's a good way to swear and a bad way.
The bad way to swear is to just do it all the time in your normal language.
Then it looks uncreative, And you also get used to it, and then it doesn't mean anything.
It's just background, bad noise.
But if you don't swear all the time, and you pick your spots, and people go, whoa, wasn't expecting that, it serves to highlight a point if it's the only thing you want people to remember.
What is the other thing you remember from the Rush Limbaugh interview?
Name one thing you know about it.
Now, I didn't listen to it, so the only thing I know is what the coverage was.
So whatever the coverage was is all I've heard.
So I've heard exactly one thing about that entire event, and it was that the president was talking about Iran and said about Iran, quote, if you F around with us...
You're going to be in a lot of trouble, basically.
So he was telling Iran, don't F with us.
And I think that was a perfect use of the F word.
That was presidential-level swearing.
Because if you're Iran, are you going to hear that message?
Well, you probably hear it just because the president said it.
But you're really going to hear it with the F word.
And, more importantly, the entire country heard it.
With the F word.
Now, what does that make you think about his threat?
Isn't it weird? It doesn't make sense.
But it makes it more credible, doesn't it?
The fact that he used the F word makes the threat more credible.
Now, if he swore every minute of every day in public, it wouldn't mean anything.
But because he saved that curse for that moment and for that topic, It really draws your mind to it.
You really focus. So that's sort of also what Russell Brand talks about in the video I mentioned.
He mentions how the president seems like if you don't know persuasion, and you don't know communication, and you don't know the ideal way to do this stuff in a public way, If you don't know that field, it does look like he's randomly thrashing around.
Because you wouldn't know why he says the things he does.
You would just say, that's provocative.
That's not done. That's impolite.
That's the wrong word.
Don't swear in public.
You would have all these generic, low-level comments about it because that's all you would see if you didn't have more of a talent stack.
But Russell Brand has a far more complete talent stack that includes acting and humor and communication.
He's got a vocabulary like nobody's business.
So he's got a whole bunch of skills that are relevant to looking at Trump accurately.
And he calls it down pretty well.
Apparently Durham has hinted that there will be no more indictments...
About the whole Russia hoax stuff.
And that there might be no more information forthcoming before Election Day.
Is that like the biggest letdown ever?
That's pretty deflating, isn't it?
Because it's starting to look as if, and I guess it's looked like this for a while, That there was a real coup attempt against the legally elected president of the United States, and that all of the coup attempted people will completely get away with it.
As of today, it looks like an actual coup attempt where we know the names of the players, we have their own thoughts and their own handwriting in some cases, totally documented, as clear as can be, And there will be no penalty for the primary people involved.
Now, is there a defense?
If it went to trial, would they win?
Is there enough reasonable doubt that there wouldn't be a conviction anyway?
I don't know.
I'm not really an expert on the law, so I don't know.
But does the country deserve that trial?
I think we do. I feel like we deserve that.
Meaning that things were done that created enough reasonable doubt, at least reasonable doubt that the law was obeyed, so I'm using it in the reverse way, this way, that we should know the answer to that.
I don't think that this is completely political.
It seems like a legal issue to me.
All right. But that's going to be disappointing.
Apparently there will be some Hillary emails that will be revealed, but the indication is that they're not going to be interesting.
So there will be unredacted Hillary Clinton emails, allegedly some ones that had been deleted before but are recovered.
I would wait to hear what's happening with that, but I would...
I would warn you that the Hillary emails will probably be a lot of nothing.
It might be something embarrassing in there, and that might be politically useful, but there won't be anything legal in there, I'm pretty sure.
By the way, if you're a lawyer, remember Hillary Clinton is very skilled, very smart, trained attorney, lots of experience.
Do you think a trained attorney Puts evidence of a crime in an email.
It doesn't matter if you have your own server.
There's nobody who's a competent lawyer who's going to put indications of their own crime in an email.
It just isn't going to happen.
DOG is run by Hillary's sympathizers.
Somebody's saying, yeah, I think that that's at least partially true.
Alright, according to Rasmussen, Trump earned a 50% monthly job approval in September, which would be up from August, and would be the highest job approval of the year.
His previous high was 49% in February.
So, what would it indicate, if these were normal times, what would it indicate to you if you knew that Trump had a 50% approval level?
Under normal times, that pretty much guarantees re-election.
That is well into the you're going to get re-elected territory.
But these are not normal times.
So we now have a situation where we're supposed to listen to the experts, believe the professionals in all ways, but the polls are telling two completely different stories.
This Rasmussen poll, and I remind you Rasmussen was one of the most accurate pollsters in 2016.
They're saying that this approval level, if it's true, if this holds to be accurate, would pretty much guarantee Trump is going to get re-elected.
But the other polls, from the other pollsters, and they do seem...
A lot of smart people are saying they look like suppression polls.
They look like polls that are not meant to be accurate.
They're meant to cause you to stay home and not vote for Trump.
And they're just wildly in the other direction.
Now, if those other polls were intentionally fake, what would you expect to happen in the coming weeks?
Here's what you would expect.
If the polls saying that Trump is going to lose by a landslide...
If they start immediately tightening and they continue tightening all the way to election day, that means they were never real.
That's how you know. Now, I predicted that in 2016.
I predicted that the polls would close because here's why.
If you're a professional polling company, you don't want your final prediction, the one that everybody will remember, the one just before the election, you don't want that prediction to be way off.
Because that's the one you'll be remembered for.
But all the ones before that, you can be off as much as you want.
And you can just say, well, we were right before.
And now we're right again.
It's just that things changed.
So we were never incorrect.
That's the story they could tell.
But they have to close the gap and get it real close right before the election.
In other words, get it close to what it might actually be before the election so that they can say, well, we only missed it by 2%.
Not too bad, right?
Only off 2%.
So now, is there a chance...
That the actual voting preferences will change by that much between now and Election Day.
Is that possible? Well, suppose there are no more big surprises.
Because you would have to come up with a really big surprise to move the polls five points, let's say, before Election Day.
What would it take, in this country where people have made up their minds a year ahead of time, What would it take in this environment to move the election five points between now and election day?
I would say that's about as close to impossible as you can get.
But watch it happen. Which means they were never real polls.
Doesn't that mean the polls are engineered?
And the answer is it doesn't prove it because it is within the realm of physical possibility That people's opinions could change a lot between now and Election Day.
But do you believe that?
Because the polls are going to tighten.
But I don't believe you'll meet too many people who change their minds between now and Election Day.
So it's going to be kind of fishy.
That's what I predict. Let's talk about the coronavirus deaths.
So officially there are over 200,000 deaths.
Deaths attributed to coronavirus in this country so far.
But according to Ethical Skeptic, who you should follow on Twitter, Ethical Skeptic, the total CDC excess all caused deaths.
So these are the extra deaths over the baseline of the normal amount of people who die in a normal year.
The baseline is 320,000 through September.
So why would 320,000 people extra over what you would expect be dead, whereas only two-thirds of them, the 200,000 or so, are from what we think to be coronavirus?
Right? So what's going on there?
And here's the really scary part, according to Ethical Skeptic.
That even though there are over 100,000 deaths that are excess, that don't have a label on them, they're not coronavirus specific, that category of the ones that we don't have a reason for is growing twice as fast as COVID deaths.
That's right. It's only half as big, 100,000, that's a lot.
That's a lot of excess deaths.
200,000 coronavirus deaths in the same time period, but the 100,000 is growing twice as fast.
Is that not exactly what most of you expected if the lockdown continues?
It's because you're going to see the suicides and the overdoses, and you're going to see reckless behavior.
You're just going to see people who maybe didn't go in for their cancer checkup.
So that's a pretty scary thing.
But I still have a tremendous doubt that we really know the real coronavirus deaths.
Here's the best hypothesis I have for why these death rates appear to be completely wrong.
But might be. They might be right.
It's just they don't pass the sniff test even a little bit.
And here's why they don't pass the sniff test.
If we were not looking at other countries and what's happening in the other countries...
I wouldn't see anything wrong with our numbers.
Our numbers would just be whatever they are.
Okay, that's what happened.
That's our numbers. So I wouldn't be doubting the American death rate from coronavirus if not that other countries that are not that non-comparable have tiny little death rates that don't make sense.
Because even if they did everything right, and even if we did a lot of things wrong, The total number in the death rate still wouldn't make sense.
The difference between them and us just can't be explained by us doing things differently or having more obesity.
None of it comes close to explaining the gigantic differences.
So there's something unexplained.
If I had to guess, it would go like this.
And somebody speculated this, so I'm not making this up.
The speculation is this.
If you're in some foreign hospital, let's say not in the United States, and you have stage 4, 5, whatever the number is, cancer, it's terminal cancer, but you also have coronavirus, what would they call that?
If two things were required to kill you, which one is the cause of your death?
Because you needed both the cancer...
And the coronavirus to kill you.
If you had just the coronavirus, maybe you would have lived.
If you had just the cancer...
Oh, actually, the cancer, you still would have lived today.
It's just that it would have finished you off within a year, perhaps.
So which one's the cause of death?
If you were not going to be a doctor, if you were not going to be the government, if you were just going to be you, and somebody said, what killed this patient?
Here are the conditions. Terminal cancer and coronavirus.
But they died the week they got the coronavirus.
In the United States, we say, well, it can't be a coincidence that they died when they got the coronavirus.
That's not a coincidence.
And they died specifically in a way that looks like the coronavirus.
It's the coronavirus.
If you're in another country, would you say to yourself, this person would have lived if they didn't have cancer?
So it's the cancer that killed them.
If I had to guess for what is the big unexplained variable that's the difference between other countries and us, I don't think it's leadership, I don't think it's when we did or did not close travel, I don't think it's masks, I don't think it's social distancing, although I do think all those things matter.
I think every one of those contributed to us not getting the result we wanted.
But if you added them all together, they wouldn't come close to explaining the difference between our result and some other countries.
It has to be the way we count them, I would think.
But I could be wrong about that.
So I'm still open to another explanation that's better.
Let's see. What else we got going on here?
I... You know, we're actually going to have a way to maybe test the hypothesis that the masks and the social distances don't make that much difference.
So you know there are notable skeptics who are making the claim that it doesn't really matter if you wear a mask or socially distance, there's just not enough difference to make that worth doing.
And then there are lots of experts, in fact the majority I believe, Who say, yes, masks definitely work.
Social distancing definitely works.
And it works a lot.
It's not just some minor effect.
It works a lot. Now, it turns out that Florida is going to go from a lockdown state in which the infections were relatively under control.
They're going to open everything.
And it's going to happen fast.
Now, I just read one expert who said that that predicts If you believe that masks do work, and you believe that social distancing does make a big difference, you should see a massive spike in infections in Florida in, what, 10 to 12 weeks, I think somebody said.
So here's this one expert, Michael Osterholm, director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research in Minnesota, University of Minnesota.
So somebody who actually knows infectious diseases said that because Florida is reopening, said that it cleared the way for bars and restaurants to fully reopen, and that in 10 weeks or so we should see them turn into a hot spot.
So, place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.
Many of you here have said that masks do not work.
Raise your hand if you said that masks do not work, not me, because I say they work.
Or specifically what I say is, if you don't know for sure if they work or how well they work, the risk management leads you to say, let's wear them just in case.
So my take on masks is, I think they work.
My common sense, my reasoning...
The data I've seen tell me they work.
But even if I'm wrong, the risk management says, go ahead and wear them.
Now, so how many of you who believe masks don't make a difference, are you willing to bet that Florida will stay relatively under control?
Because if the masks and the distancing really, really were the key, wouldn't you agree that Florida is going to be a hotspot in a few weeks?
So put your bet down.
You no longer...
Of course, this isn't as scientific or controlled study as you'd want it to be, so it can never be full confirmation.
But don't you think there's a probability that's pretty high that if masks are the key, Florida's going to be a hot spot?
If it isn't, there's something else going on that we don't quite understand.
All right. Chris Christie was released from the hospital after a week.
I guess he got remdesivir.
Now, is that the best news you've ever heard in your life?
I suppose it's been so much you like Chris Christie.
But I'm not talking about him in particular.
So this comment is not about him as a person or a politician.
This is a comment about him as a patient.
If you have a patient who looks like Chris Christie, and I don't do fat shaming, because I just don't believe in it, I don't believe in free will, therefore I don't do fat shaming.
But, objectively speaking, he is exactly the guy you think is going to die from coronavirus.
Am I right? Wouldn't you say, when you saw Chris Christie went into the hospital with coronavirus, did you not say to yourself, uh-oh, that's one you've got to keep an eye on.
And then he walks out of the hospital a week later, being treated with a drug that was made to do exactly what it did.
Apparently it worked. In the comments, somebody's saying, why worry about a cold with such a low death rate?
How could you get this far into the pandemic and still think that the coronavirus isn't that dangerous?
How can you still have that opinion?
Because I'm pretty sure a few hundred thousand people have died from it just in this country.
And the number of people who died from the regular flu, That is a lie.
If you think it was ever 50 to 100,000 people were dying from the regular flu, find one.
Go find me somebody who died from the regular flu.
It's not real. We never had 50 to 100,000 people dying from the regular flu.
That was the number that was wrong.
We were misdirected like a magic trick.
You know, the magic trick is to make you look at the wrong hand.
And we kept looking at the deaths from coronavirus and saying, hey, I'm not sure those are real.
Hey, those coronavirus deaths don't look entirely believable in some cases.
But that was the distraction.
The real number you should have looked at is that the regular flu numbers were never real.
And nobody claims they were.
Like, you can't find the other argument.
You can find an argument that says, oh, These seem to be exaggerated.
It doesn't seem that anything like this is really happening.
50 to 100,000 people dying of a regular flu.
No evidence of that.
Have you ever met anybody who died of the regular flu?
Probably not. So, if you're not a skeptic on data before the pandemic, you should be one after.
You know, I don't think we can underestimate.
No, I don't think we can overestimate.
I don't think we could underestimate.
It's one of those. I always get those backwards.
But the effect of this pandemic on our thinking about climate change is gigantic.
Because the thing with climate change is there are a bunch of experts making a bunch of claims.
And the people who are not experts are trying their best to understand if the experts are conning them.
Now what happens if you go through the pandemic and your conclusion is...
That the experts were wrong more than you think any expert should ever be wrong, and that they might have been conning you.
What's that going to make you think about climate change?
Because even though they're completely different situations, you should not be taking what you learned in one and transferring it over to the other.
They're just too different. But you will!
You don't have a choice.
Your brain is wired to put things in buckets where those things that end up in the bucket look similar in some ways.
Your brain is a compartmentalizer.
It puts things in categories.
It wants to say this is like that other thing.
It makes analogies.
It does it automatically. You can't turn it off.
So the analogies and the feelings and the The patterns that you take away from the pandemic situation, you will apply them to climate change, even if you didn't want to.
Even if your conscious brain is saying, no, that doesn't make sense, they're too different.
You will apply them, and it will change how you think about climate change.
All right. Kim Jong-un allegedly was on video...
He appeared in public for a big North Korea celebration.
I guess they held it at midnight.
So at 12 a.m., they have a giant parade and celebration, which is way past my bedtime.
But I guess it worked over there.
And here's the interesting thing about it.
Now, I believe I'm the only person who is talking about this conspiracy theory.
And I think if you label your own opinion a conspiracy theory, That that should be signal enough how seriously to take this?
Okay? So if I'm calling it a conspiracy theory, you should not put more credibility in it than I just put in it myself.
But it's fun.
And it's one of those things to look for, and maybe you can learn something by observing this.
And it goes like this.
If Kim Jong-un were alive and healthy, what would you expect to see...
From a living, healthy leader of North Korea.
Well, you would expect him to appear on video, which he did, and you would expect to hear him speak, which we have.
Apparently, he spoke in public, so we must have recordings of that somewhere.
So, therefore, he's alive, right?
We saw a new video that does look reliably like it's a new video, and we heard that he gave a speech.
So now you've heard him.
You've seen him, and there's enough evidence that both of them happened recently.
So he's alive.
It's a done deal, right?
And anybody who thinks that maybe he was incapacitated or already dead, well, they're wrong.
Because he just proved it.
Showed up on video.
Plenty of video. Gave a speech.
Oh, oh, oh, wait.
There's one thing I forgot to tell you.
The video shows him walking and interacting with people.
The audio is disconnected from the video, meaning that we don't have video that includes audio of him talking.
Interesting. Because that's exactly the thing you'd expect to see if somebody existed, they were alive, and they were well.
When was the last time that you saw a picture of President Trump and then separately you heard the audio of his speech?
Well, I think it's happened.
But far more likely you would see a video of him speaking.
And if Kim Jong-un appeared on the balcony in his nice gray suit, which apparently he did because the video shows that, and he's in front of his adoring crowds and everything, and there's a microphone right in front of him, Do you think we wouldn't see at least a little bit of him speaking?
Now, we wouldn't understand what he was saying, but still, it would be normal to show just a few seconds of Kim Jong-un speaking to the crowd.
Because apparently he did, they say.
So, let me say this.
The video of Kim Jong-un, in which he is not heard speaking, but he's interacting with kids and with his public, He looks very healthy.
In fact, he looks healthier than I have ever seen Kim Jong-un.
He looks a little younger even.
He looks great.
And I remember Kim Jong-un walking with a bit of a difficulty.
Am I wrong? Did he not have, I don't know, gout or something?
There was something wrong with his walking?
Because this Kim Jong-un yesterday He's walking great.
He looks totally healthy.
He doesn't look like he's breathing hard or anything.
So we've got a suspiciously healthy-looking Kim Jong-un in a country known to have body doubles.
Those are just facts.
He looks healthier than he's ever looked.
He did not speak.
And, whatever the other point was, You know, the thing.
The thing. I'm talking like Joe Biden now.
So here's the bottom line.
Without a video that we know to be current of him speaking, I have to ask this.
I've got to ask you this.
It might be easy to find somebody who looks like Kim Jong-un.
Maybe with some plastic surgery, maybe he's got to eat a little more, whatever he needs to do.
But you could make somebody look like Kim Jong-un.
It also seems quite possible, and not really that hard, to find somebody who could do an impression and sound like Kim Jong-un.
But how hard would it be to find somebody who could nail the physical look of Kim Jong-un to the point where you couldn't tell the difference, and also be so talented that that same person could do a An impression of his voice.
That'd be hard, wouldn't it?
But it wouldn't be that hard, or at least it wouldn't be impossible, to find one person who could do the audio and one person who could do the look.
So, what are the odds that he's not really alive and not really that guy on the video?
I don't know. It's just my own conspiracy theory, so don't take it any more seriously than I do.
But I wouldn't wonder about his limp.
So the craziest guy in the world, Keith Olbermann, also one of the worst people in the world.
There aren't too many people who I would disagree with that then I would go further and say, this person's a bad person.
But with Keith Olbermann, there's something really wrong with this guy.
So this is what he said out loud in public.
Remember, this is out loud, intentional, Written in advance, meant to say it.
So this isn't a slip of the tongue.
He meant to say every word.
Quote, talking about Trump, he says, he and his enablers and his supporters.
Wait a minute. That's some of us.
And his collaborators.
Collaborators? Who are we calling collaborators?
And the Mike Lees and the William Bars.
Oh, okay, I see. He's talking about people who were in the government and worked closely with Trump.
Okay. And the Mike Pences, yeah, work closely with Trump.
Rudy Giuliani, well, wasn't elected, but he works with Trump.
And the Kyle Rittenhouses, what?
He just threw Kyle Rittenhouse in the category with Mike Pence, William Barr, and two senators.
Kyle Rittenhouse?
What are his politics?
We don't even know.
Nobody knows his politics, do they?
But it's not pro or anti-Trump, as far as I can tell, in any outward way.
But then after Kyle Rittenhouse, he says, and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society.
That's right. The woman who is so qualified that she's being probably put on the Supreme Court...
Keith Olbermann says she must be prosecuted and convicted.
Of... Of...
What exactly are you going to prosecute and convict Amy Coney Barrett of?
And put her in jail? What?
Lots of Cicero-style Trump enemies, somebody says.
All right. So, and he says, and they all must be destroyed by...
Because Trump turned over the world to a virus.
So that's Keith Olbermann.
Keith Olbermann is one of the dumbest, most evil people in the world.
Years ago, I've told this story before, he invited me on his show that got cancelled a long time ago.
And he wanted me to be on the show to address a critic who was also going to be on the show.
And the critic was a critic of me.
So I was invited on Keith Olbermann's show...
To get beaten up by an author who wrote a book who said, I'm evil, basically, because I write the Dilbert cartoon strip.
And the theory was that the Dilbert cartoon strip is really a tool of the elites to keep the workers pacified.
There was an actual book Written to say that I'm part of the elite plan to keep workers pacified, and the Dilbert comic strip does that.
So Keith Olbermann invited me on to address that.
Now, do you think I'm going to go on television to address that?
That was so crazy that I was like, ah, how about I don't go on television to enrich you by going on TV to be insulted?
Why would I enrich Keith Olbermann by becoming part of his content, unpaid, on a show that was dedicated to insulting me?
So I skipped it.
The critic went on, he insulted me, but nobody watched, and that was the end of it.
Alright. Yeah, Dilbert's an enemy of the revolution.
