Episode 1156 Scott Adams: Why Trump deserves to lose. Why Biden deserves to lose.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Wildfire aid funds for California refused by Feds
My issues with President Trump
My issues with Joe Biden
Did the Biden family do anything illegal?
Twitter's Jack Dorsey addresses recent issues
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Today it's time for an exciting and provocative episode of Coffee with Scott Adams.
Yes, exciting and provocative, just the way you like them.
And in order to have the maximum amount of pleasure and to make sure that this is the launch of your day, the part that makes all of it better, you don't need much.
It's really easy. All you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or 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.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen right now.
Go. Yes, I feel the civil discourse in this country improving 1%.
And that was just one sip.
Imagine if I finished that whole cup.
It's hard to imagine, isn't it?
Well, let's talk about all the news.
Let's see. First we have the Trump administration has rejected a California request for disaster declaration.
Now, so California asked for some financial help from the federal government because of all the forest fires, and that was rejected.
And so I looked for the reason.
And I thought, well, certainly a story about a major thing being rejected There's going to be a reason, but I didn't see a reason.
Now maybe there will be a reason.
It could be that a reason will be forthcoming.
But if there is no reason given, what would you have to assume?
What would be the default assumption if no reason is given in the news?
The default assumption is that it's political.
If it's political, then I certainly could not support President Trump anymore.
Now, if we don't hear what the reason was, you have to just assume it was political, and then you end up in the same place, although I do, just specifically me, because an attack on California would be an attack on me, because I live in California.
Let me tell you a story, just so you can get some context.
During the Obama administration, I had been a silent but supportive Person of President Obama.
I don't know if many of you knew that, but if you're finding out for the first time, I was perfectly happy with President Obama until he changed his opinion on going after marijuana dispensaries in California.
Now, California said that the dispensaries were okay.
Obama had run for office saying he wasn't going to bother the states.
Whatever they wanted to do was fine.
And then he reversed himself, which would have put a California resident who started a dispensary, would have put him in jail for 10 years for doing something that the government told him would be okay.
Obama said it would be okay.
We're not going to go after you.
The state said it's legal.
He started up what he believed to be a perfectly sanctioned business, and then Obama changed the law, and it looked like he was going to go to jail for 10 years.
At that point, I said, I'm out.
I'm out. If Obama had given a reason for changing his opinion, I would have said, well, listen to the reason.
And then if the reason had been a good one, I'd say, ah, okay.
I hate the fact that he changed his opinion.
I hate the fact that it puts this guy in jeopardy when he was following the rules as he understood them.
But at least I understand the reasoning.
President Obama never offered that reason.
And so the default assumption is it was for political reasons or there was some funding involved.
Maybe there was a backer of some type.
Maybe the alcohol industry didn't want marijuana to be legal.
I don't know what it was.
But by not giving a reason, he was completely disqualified for office.
That was an argument I made at the time.
The way that was interpreted is that I endorsed Romney for president over Obama.
But it wasn't so much that I loved Romney, I didn't know much about him, just that he wasn't Obama.
And Obama had done something that was just disqualifying.
It doesn't matter what other good things you do.
It doesn't matter.
If you go after a citizen and put a citizen in jail for political or monetary reasons while you're president, you're as disqualified as you can be.
You can't get more disqualified than that.
And so I will say I'll put the same standard on this story.
If it turns out that there's a reason, it could be the California didn't apply for it correctly, or they just don't have the money or something.
I'll listen to the reason.
But if there's no reason, it's just rejected, you have to assume it's political, and that's targeted at me, because I live in California.
If that's the case, then I would say the president would not be qualified to For office.
Just based on that alone. And I'm not even done.
So, do you remember when immigration was a big issue?
Doesn't that feel like a long time ago now?
What happened? Where is the reporting?
Where is the reporting on immigration?
Did immigration stop?
Did it become less of an issue?
Or did we just stop reporting it?
It makes you wonder about the nature of news, doesn't it?
How can something be the biggest news, immigration, and then just sort of stop being the biggest news?
Is it because it stopped?
Because that would be news too, right?
If the amount of immigration went way down for some reason, either because they're doing a better job at the border or because of coronavirus or something, It's big news, no matter what's happening, but it just disappeared.
And so the question I have to ask is, did it disappear because whatever the news is, and I don't know, because it's not reported, is it because that would have been positive for Trump?
Is that why it disappeared?
Because you did at least expect Fox News to be reporting it, if it's good news for Trump, but it just disappeared.
I don't know, I just have an open question on that.
There's a horrible story about a man who lost his father to coronavirus, but also seven other family members, the same family.
And two of them were young kids.
Young, I saw a picture, it looked like they were 10 or 11 years old, maybe 9, 10, 11.
Now, if you lose two kids in your family that are young, and they're in that age group that basically nobody should be dying from coronavirus, And you lose seven members of your entire family, doesn't that tell you there's a genetic element we don't yet understand?
I'm not the statistics expert, but what are the odds of this family having that many problems from coronavirus?
It's not an accident that the entire family gets infected.
That would be normal.
But to lose seven members of the family and two of them are children?
That is such a strong indication, I would think, or, you know, certainly not proof of anything, because, as I've told you before, statistics can cluster.
It's possible, not possible, it's guaranteed that you'll always get little weird, unexplained clusters of things, and when you look at it, The big picture, they sort of disappear in importance.
Because statistics allows that sometimes, just by chance, things cluster up.
Is that what happened with this family?
Did they just have the worst luck in the world?
I don't think so.
You know, they looked like they had maybe some weight issues in the family, but not the two children.
The two children didn't have any special weight issues.
So I'd love to know more about the The DNA elements there.
If you're not following Jake Novak on Twitter, you should be.
Novak, N-O-V-A-K. Because he has the best tweets on anything that's happening in the Middle East that would also be relative to the United States and to politics in particular.
And one of the things he tweeted, which I don't know if you saw anywhere else.
Tell me if you saw this news anywhere else.
But Zogby did a poll...
And found that in Saudi Arabia, 80% of Saudis are in favor of working toward normalizing ties with Israel within the next five years.
71% even thinking it likely that other Arab nations will normalize ties with Israel and the Palestinians.
Think about that.
80% of Saudis want to just get along with Israel.
That is gigantic news, because it largely guarantees it's going to happen, given that there's some momentum in that direction.
Now, I was kind of thinking that this might be one of the October surprises, because it would just be some amazing good news for Trump.
And if ever there was a country that owed Trump a favor...
Name the country that owes Trump a favor beyond all other countries.
You might say Israel.
Israel would be a good guess.
But that's more about long-term good allies working together well.
But Saudi Arabia owes President Trump, specifically the crown prince, owes President Trump more than anybody ever owed any other leader.
Because Trump did give him cover on the whole Khashoggi affair.
And I said at the time, I said at the time, this is creating a situation that might have a payback later.
Because Trump played it to get the chip.
That's what it looked like.
It looked like he was playing the game to get this favor to create an asset out of nothing.
If Trump had simply condemned Saudi Arabia like everybody else did, he would have not had a free favor.
But given that nobody's opinion about Saudi Arabia was changed in any way based on what Trump said, I don't think there's a person in the world who listened to Trump's opinion on Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia and said, yeah, I think I'll take that opinion.
I don't think anybody did that.
So it didn't change anybody's opinion, which is good, but he got a free asset, which is what Trump does.
He carves a free asset and nothing.
He got a favor out of it.
Future favor. If this turns out to be the future favor, if Saudi Arabia maybe accelerates their timeline for making good with Israel, that would be a gigantic favor.
So I wouldn't rule it out.
But I also think we might have heard about it by now, so certainly not guaranteed.
I tweeted that I'm looking to do a recorded interview before election with somebody who is an anti-Trumper.
I just want to do a citizen who's got serious TDS... Not necessarily professional.
A lot of people were suggesting to me names.
How about this person? How about this person?
Why don't you talk to Sam Harris?
Etc. But I'd rather talk to just a voter.
Somebody who wouldn't mind going in public and just giving me their full best argument about Trump.
And just see how it goes.
Now, unfortunately, I asked on Twitter, and I got over a thousand responses, of which everyone that I looked at was the wrong kind.
They were suggesting people as opposed to people suggesting themselves, which is what I was hoping for.
So I don't know if I'll be able to pour through all thousand, but if there's somebody who wants to do that and doesn't mind a little public attention...
I'd like to do that. But a non-professional would be ideal.
You could be a professional lawyer or professional something else, but not a public pundit.
So in news that just sort of slipped under the radar a little bit, the World Health Organization just announced that remdesivir doesn't work.
Did you see that coming?
Who had a bet on the World Health Organization declaring that remdesivir doesn't work?
Now, of course, the company that makes remdesivir is pushing back on that Gilead.
And so I guess there was some big trial, and the result of it was that they didn't see any benefit of remdesivir.
And... And remdesivir responded by saying, well, we're not sure that new study is so robust because we have these other studies that say it does work.
So what does that do to remdesivir?
First of all, does anybody believe the World Health Organization about anything anymore?
You know, is there anybody who said, oh, the World Health Organization says remdesivir doesn't work based on the study, but what does that do?
I mean, the World Health Organization is not exactly credible.
And the question I'd ask is, does China have anything that competes with remdesivir?
You see where I'm going?
See where I'm going with this?
It could be that there's a Chinese pharmaceutical that is the competitor to remdesivir, and their pet, the World Health Organization, is just helping China sell their drug instead of remdesivir.
Do we live in a world where something like that could actually happen, like right in front of us?
Are we in the kind of a world where the World Health Organization could just blatantly ignore science and facts and reason and just back China because China will make more money from a pharmaceutical?
Yeah. Yeah.
That's exactly the world we live in.
I'm not saying that that happened.
I'm not making that claim.
I'm just saying that That's the first place I'd look.
I mean, based on past behavior, the very first thing I'd look at is, does China have a remdesivir competitor?
Just asking.
All right. So Trump has made the claim that some...
I don't know how he words it, but it sounds something like 85% of people who got coronavirus were wearing masks and Which he says to put doubt into the question of whether masks work.
Now, Tucker Carlson also did an episode on that.
And I also tried to debunk it when Tucker Carlson did it.
Because it doesn't say what you think it says.
So there's nobody...
The study did not indicate that masks don't work.
And that's the way it was being used or suggested that that was the implication.
by Tucker Carlson.
Probably that's where Trump saw it.
So Trump was echoing the doubt about masks based on this 85% study.
But without getting into the details, the study doesn't say that.
So the study is silent on whether masks work.
You can't determine from this study whether masks are good or bad.
It's not that kind of a study.
So And Jake Tapper called them out quite aggressively on CNN. Appropriately, I would say.
And I'll go further and say, I don't know if the polls are accurate.
They're showing this gigantic lead for Biden.
And I have some questions about the accuracy of the polls.
But I will say this.
If Trump loses the election, he earned it.
He earned it. I think that...
If you're president of the United States and it's yesterday and you're still in public casting doubt on the efficacy of masks and you're publicly modeling a lack of social distancing, you deserve to lose the election.
You know, I hate to say it.
I said this before.
People have said to me, Scott, you're going to feel so bad When the people believe that Trump is going to lose, they say, you're going to feel so bad, I can't wait to come back and gloat.
And I'm not going to have that feeling at all.
Honestly, if Trump loses this thing, he earned the loss.
And he earned it doing this.
Now, I would have a personal problem with them about that California wildfire funding thing, but we might find out that there was actually a good reason that that was rejected.
I could think of lots of good reasons to reject it.
I just haven't heard one. But on this issue, there's nothing that's going to change my mind.
At this point in the coronavirus, having the president actively and aggressively, I would say, Question the efficacy of masks and the efficacy of large gatherings is completely disqualifying.
You just can't stay on this train anymore.
I'm sorry. I mean, I know that you will, and I know you'll be mad at me for falling off it, but this is completely disqualifying.
I would guess that Trump's statement about masks and this 85% of people, if I had to put a number on it, it probably killed 50,000 people.
There you have it. If I had to guess how many people extra will die because of the president's fuck-up, probably 50,000 people.
If you doubt that, it's because you doubt social distancing works or matters, and you doubt that masks are effective.
I will allow you to maintain that doubt, but someday we're going to know Someday we're going to know.
Now, I can't guarantee that I could estimate in any way any difference in death toll based on masks or social distancing.
I don't have the skill to estimate that.
But we all have to make a decision based on our best judgment with the incomplete knowledge we have, the incomplete understanding of science that we all have.
We're just sort of doing our best With the bad information we have.
And my best judgment is that masks make a difference.
And I'll boil down my argument to this.
Virus doesn't travel by itself.
You all agree with this part.
The virus has to be on a water particle, right?
A virus could easily get through a mask.
A water particle, some of them can.
Even most of them, I think.
Water particles also travel in the air.
So you need the virus, you need the water, and you need the air.
If you don't have all three of those things, the virus isn't going anywhere.
You all agree with that so far, right?
So if you agree it takes all three things, a virus, You need the water droplets, and you need the air as the carrier.
If all those things are necessary, I want you to do this experiment.
Put on your mask, hold the lit candle in front of you, and try to blow it out.
If you can blow out the candle, masks don't work.
They don't work.
Because if you can blow out a candle, no problem.
It means that there's virus, Water and air coming right through the front of the mask in such force that it would be equivalent to if you had no mask on at all.
If you can't blow out the candle, would you at least feel there's a little more chance that masks might work?
The entire medical community, when I say entire, I'd say probably 95% of it and all the experts are on the same side that masks are essential and work.
Probably 95%.
Could they be wrong?
Is it possible that someday in the future there'll be some way we find out for sure if the coronavirus situation was the one weird situation where the masks don't make any difference?
Could we find that out?
We could. Anything's possible.
But if you're playing the odds...
And you're doing your best job to decide what's right, the odds are just overwhelmingly in favor of masks making some difference, as well as social distancing.
Because the outbreaks that we see are so clearly related to social distancing, and now they're becoming increasingly clearly related to not wearing masks.
I feel the president may have killed 50,000 people by his interpretation of mask efficacy.
That's my guess. Probably 50,000 people.
And I would say, you know, I said in the beginning of this pandemic that all of the leaders, all of the experts are going to make some pretty bad mistakes.
But we should be forgiving because everybody's guessing.
In the beginning, everybody was just guessing.
And I'm quite forgiving about those particular mistakes.
However, it's not the beginning anymore.
At this point, we're well into it.
Somebody says, concentrate on the recovery rate.
Well, we'll see. We'll find out in the next few months whether everything gets worse or better.
And then the other thing that is disqualifying is that Trump, still at this late date, has not presented a health care plan, per se.
So there's nothing with a branded name that you could say, this is Trump's plan.
And at the same time he doesn't have anything like a package or a branded health care plan, he is not doing a good job of removing people's fear That if Obamacare gets overthrown by the courts, that they won't just lose their coverage.
Now, Trump has said, it is my policy, you're not going to lose your coverage because of conditions you already had, so pre-existing conditions.
Now, he has said that, and he's said it clearly, he's even done an executive order, and still, he has not said it persuasively.
Now, do I believe that the President has the ability to be persuasive?
Yes! Yes, he does!
See that book behind me?
I wrote a whole book on how persuasive the President is.
Why is it that he can't persuade the public that he really means to give them real health care that's better, and that he won't get rid of the health care until he's got something that's better?
It's a very simple message.
People, I know you're afraid, but let me tell you one thing for sure.
I'm not going to get rid of the health care that exists, the Obamacare.
I'm not going to touch it until we've got something that's better and that it doesn't leave anybody uncovered and that there are no pre-existing condition people who get screwed because of this.
So this is what I promise you, and you can hold me to it.
I will not, will not introduce new health care You know, I'm sorry, I will not get rid of what you have until you absolutely can move to something better without any risk.
Did you hear how clearly I said that?
Did it sound convincing?
You know, if I'd been president, yeah.
Yeah, that would have sounded convincing.
Because we know the president can hit a message and keep it simple all day long.
There's nobody who's ever been better at simplifying and repeating and just making sure you know, I mean to build a wall.
Is there anybody here who wondered, does Trump intend to build a wall?
Nope. There's nobody who has any doubt about his intentions to build a wall.
No doubt at all. You might like it, you might not like it, but you don't doubt it.
But in healthcare, why is it that with healthcare he can't sell that simple message?
You're not going to lose anything until, and only under this condition, we have something you can move to seamlessly that's just better.
Just better. Cost you less, give you just as much or better protection, period.
If I can't give you that, I'm not getting rid of anything.
Because we're only interested in improving.
Nobody has an interest in anybody losing their health care.
That's the last thing I want.
So if I can tell you one thing for sure, you're not going to lose any health care.
You're only going to maybe get better health care, period.
That's the only thing that could happen.
Now listen to what I just said.
You tell me that that's not easy to do?
That's easy. Trump isn't doing it.
Time's run out.
You know, I was kind of waiting, oh, maybe in that last month he'll put something together.
Nope. Nope.
It's pretty obvious there's not going to be any kind of a Trump healthcare plan, and it is now completely obvious that he's not going to even try very hard to convince you you're not going to lose your fucking healthcare.
Alright? That's not even really trying.
Alright? I don't even know if Trump wants to win at this point.
Because it's so obvious what he would need to do to win, it's like he's not even playing to win.
And then last night, you know, he gets asked the softball question of all softball questions, and he whiffs.
He whiffs on a softball.
And it goes like this.
How come you won't...
Why are you not...
Why are you hesitant...
Basically, I'm paraphrasing Savannah Guthrie.
You've been hesitant to denounce white supremacy.
And again, he blew it.
I don't know how many times you can miss that softball before even your supporters start saying, um...
I don't believe you're a white supremacist, and I don't believe that you're sending them any kind of a racist whistle.
That's my view. I don't believe anything like that's happening.
But it's the world's easiest question, and there's one way to do it right, and there's every other way to do it which is wrong.
Let me explain the right way to do it.
Why are you so hesitant to denounce white supremacists?
I'm not hesitant at all.
I denounce it completely.
I denounce the neo-Nazis, the white supremacists.
I denounce all forms of racism, and I'll even go further.
I denounce Antifa.
I got some issues with Black Lives Matter.
Any kind of hate like that, I'm absolutely out.
And if there's anything I've ever said in the past, it was more because of the way the question was asked.
I just didn't like to get pushed into repeating somebody's claim.
But I want to tell you, no doubt about it, 100%, let's never even talk about it again, I disavow the hell out of those guys.
I can't disavow them any more than I have.
But instead, now you heard my answer, right?
Did my answer sound like I was equivocating?
No, it didn't.
Because I wasn't.
You can tell when somebody's equivocating.
What does Trump do?
Well, you know, you keep trying this trick.
And immediately the flag goes up.
Why don't you first answer the question?
And then he gets into that he's said it many times before.
True. And it's a good defense.
I've debunked them many times before.
But once you get a little whiny about that...
It's still taking away from the main thing, which is, why wasn't the first frickin' thing you said, I denounce them all in the clearest possible language, now let me tell you why, you know, this is fake news in the first place.
You can get to the fake news part, and the part that you've done it many times, but you don't want to lead off with that.
Because that's defensive, sounds like you're making a case, sounds like you're trying to be a lawyer a little bit.
Don't be a lawyer.
Don't be a lawyer on the question of, do you denounce white supremacists?
That's not something that you equivocate on.
It's not something you beat around the bush.
It's not something you trim the hedges on.
You've got to go right down the middle on that every time.
Now again, let me be clear.
I don't think there's any chance that Trump is supporting the white supremacists.
He never said they were fine people.
That's fake news. You know, I don't believe he's sending any kind of a whistle to them.
I think that's nonsense.
But man, talk about not being able to answer a question well.
That's really disappointing, you've got to say.
And then he does the same thing with QAnon.
Now, so he was asked if he supports them, and Savannah Guthrie says that they believe that Democrats are a bunch of pedophile, organized pedophile ring or something.
And then Trump says, I don't know anything about him.
And then Savannah Guthrie says, I just told you.
They believe there's this big pedophile ring.
Do you denounce that?
And he wouldn't do it.
How hard would it be to say, you know, I'm not signing on to any of that stuff, but I certainly appreciate the fact that they're so anti-pedophile.
Now, he did say he appreciated the anti-pedophilia part.
That was right. But it would have been so easy to say, you know, I haven't really looked into the details.
If what you say is true, that's not something I believe in.
But I can't speak to it in any detail.
But what you've said, obviously, that's not something that I endorse.
How hard would it be to do that?
How hard would it be?
Would he lose QAnon if he did that?
Would he? I doubt it.
I don't think he'd lose their votes.
But he would at least make everybody else feel he was handling that question a little bit better.
All right. I've got some bad things to say about Biden, too, in case you're disappointed.
So Biden said that he would give the voters his opinion on court packing Before the election, but not now.
So he's going to base his opinion on court packing on how the Amy Coney Barrett thing is handled.
Now, even Van Jones gave him a D- for that answer.
That answer is disqualifying.
It is disrespectful to voters.
It's dismissive of voters.
Because we do want to know this question.
He does have an opinion.
He does owe us the answer.
And finally, he admitted that he owes voters an answer.
He said the other day that they don't deserve an answer, which was a really bad answer.
And amazingly, that was his answer.
I would say that that displays a level of Disrespect for voters as well as lack of competence that is disqualifying.
So in the same way that I think Trump disqualified himself recently on the coronavirus stuff, I would say that Biden has disqualified himself as just being competent.
Now I believe that Trump is largely very competent and On a whole bunch of areas.
I think he's probably the best president we've ever had on economics and international affairs.
So I would be able to support that very easily.
So on those two really, really big things, international affairs and domestic economics, I don't think you could beat Trump.
And if those were the things you cared about the most, He'd be your candidate for sure.
But Biden is just generally incompetent and not even being able to answer the simple question that clearly the public wants to know about.
Because this court packing thing isn't a small issue.
If court packing happens, it is the end of the republic.
And that's pretty easy to predict.
Because the core system would no longer be an independent body.
They would be a captive of the executive and Congress if they were the same party.
So that's disqualifying.
By the way, Trump did say he would peacefully leave office if he lost, but he fought a little bit before he gave the direct answer, so that was terrible.
And then he gave an answer on debt.
So Savannah Guthrie asked Trump about, do you owe this 400-whatever-million?
And he answered the question correctly, and he answered it in a way that if you understood finance, you would know exactly what he meant, and you would realize that the issue was a non-issue.
If you understand economics and finance, you know that it doesn't matter if the president has debt.
That would be pretty much everybody in the real estate business.
People have debt. It doesn't mean he owes more than he's worth.
It means that if he has this much net value, he probably has some fraction of that that's debt, just like anybody who has a mortgage.
Now, he did throw in that mortgage example at one point, but it was muddled.
He needs a clean answer for that debt thing, and I think that he did not give one.
I would guess that people who didn't understand finance and economics We're still left to think he owed somebody a lot of money and they don't know who.
And it bothers them.
So I think he botched that answer.
Then Biden went back and forth on fracking.
He was against it.
He's for it. Now he doesn't support a ban on it.
But does that mean he wouldn't stop giving licenses to new applications?
Or is it only on government land?
So fracking, again, one of the biggest issues in the country, certainly in a lot of the states, Biden won't give you an answer that you can even know what he means.
So again, Biden doesn't give you a court-packing answer.
He doesn't give you a fracking answer that you can depend on.
He gives an answer, but he's all over the place.
How do you elect a president who won't even tell you his opinion on On the most important issues.
That's completely disqualifying.
Completely. I would rather have somebody tell me an opinion that I didn't like than to say, well, I'm not going to tell you or change my opinion every day.
And in a way, if you look at what Biden is becoming, he's becoming almost Trump-lite.
Because if Biden is not against fracking, And he said he's also not against defunding the police, and then he doesn't see a need for another coronavirus lockdown.
Who is he? Who is he?
Because those three things just described Trump, right?
When you say all of these, Trump doesn't support a ban on fracking, he doesn't support defunding the police, and he doesn't see a need for another coronavirus lockdown.
That's just Trump. And he's not in favor of court packing, like Trump.
So do we really think that Biden is going to be AOC friendly?
It's not looking like it, unless he's doing a whole Trojan horse thing where he's really going to be super progressive if he gets elected and lives.
All right. Let me call out, in the interest of fairness, I spend a tremendous amount of time debunking the fine people hoax, but there's a Biden version of that.
In other words, there's a hoax on the Biden side that's as big, and it goes like this.
That Joe Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor because he was investigating the Burisma and Hunter Biden.
As far as I can tell, that news is as fake, or that story is as fake as the fine people hoax.
I don't think there's any difference.
I think they're both completely untrue and demonstrably so.
Now, what is missing from the Ukrainian prosecutor's story, every time you see the debunk and somebody says, no, that didn't happen, Europe and other diplomats praised this, And that prosecutor was actually not going against any bad guys.
What do you call it? Corruption.
And it's actually the opposite.
So he was fired for not going after corruption and not going after Burisma.
He wasn't fired for going after Burisma.
Now, everybody who makes that claim does it without a source.
So there is still a possibility that there's no source for that.
Which I don't know what I'd do with that.
But why is it nobody ever shows a source?
I think they showed a source to one diplomat who agreed with firing this guy.
But I would say, preliminarily, that it is very unlikely that the most prominent claim that you'll see on Fox News about Biden is very unlikely that that's true.
I would call that fake news.
I don't know where that ranks in terms of the fake news list of worseness, but it's pretty bad if it's fake news and it looks like it to me.
So if you're assuming that's true, maybe lower your confidence that that was really happening.
Now apparently Biden was not even asked about Hunter Biden's emails.
The biggest story on the right Completely ignored and wasn't even asked.
What does that tell you?
I mean, we're definitely in a world where human voting is irrelevant.
It's just, you know, who gets hypnotized better?
So if the mainstream media has more people watching it, that's who wins the election.
That's it. Politico is trying to say that the Hunter emails May not be real and that they might be a Russian plot.
Russian mischief.
It might be a Russian plot to give disinformation to Rudy because he would then give it to Trump.
So that's Politico trying to turn this into a non-story.
But if those emails are real, they're real.
Was that the narrator?
I think I heard the narrator.
So if it turns out that Hunter Biden's emails are real, they're real, then the biggest problem in there, I don't want to say problematic, I hate that word, is that one of the emails says that he's been required to give 50% of his income to POP. What?
If that's real, If it's true that Hunter Biden is saying to his other family members, I think that's who he was talking to, that he's been giving 50% of his income to POP for a while, what would that tell you is happening?
What that would tell me is that Joe Biden has found a way to legally make lots of money, swampily, which is to have Hunter Biden do a whole bunch of stuff which individually is legal.
Was it legal for Hunter Biden to accept a board position with Burisma?
Yup. It was legal.
Was it legal for Burisma to pay him way more than people think he's worth?
Yeah. Totally legal.
Would it be legal for Hunter Biden to make a whole bunch of money in these totally legal ways and then share half of it with another family member?
Yes. That would be legal.
It's all legal.
So the indication is that Joe Biden found a way to basically be a gigantic criminal and monetize his office completely legally.
And all the evidence that we have, this email, plus his lifestyle that doesn't match what we imagine is his real income.
And it's looking a whole lot like the Biden operation was a lot like the Clinton Foundation, meaning completely legal, but maybe it shouldn't have been.
So Democrats seem to be really good at finding legal ways to monetize their elected positions.
And we don't know for sure what's true at this point, but it looks exactly like that.
And if the Biden family is not denying the emails are real...
And here's the trick.
If the Bidens deny the emails are real...
They will be caught in a lie because it's almost a guarantee that we'll find out some of them are real.
There's probably ways you can find out if they're real or not.
So they know they can't go with the direct lie because they'll be uncovered later.
So they're going to have to just pretend it doesn't exist and see if they can make half of the country never hear about the story, and they're succeeding.
They're actually succeeding in figuring out how To just completely keep the news from half of the country.
And that's all they need.
They only need half the country.
And then he's president. They don't need the other half.
As Trump taught us.
So, this is just an amazing story.
It does look like a smoking gun.
It does look like the Bidens are completely corrupt.
If this evidence is true.
Still have to put that if on there.
And it looks like they got caught.
That's what it looks like.
So let's talk about the Twitter policy.
So I want to compliment Jack Dorsey for some of his communication on this.
And what I'm complimenting is that I like that Jack starts in two different tweets in which he starts by just saying they made a mistake.
That is very disarming and very good technique.
Because if everybody's blaming you for doing something, and the very first thing out of your mouth is, total mistake, what do you do after that?
That's your complaint.
Your complaint is, I need you to hear that you made a mistake.
And then the person you're complaining to says, quote, first sentence out of them is, our communication around our actions on the New York Post article was not great.
That's a direct statement of problem, and I appreciate that.
And then, likewise, when he followed up, and I think this might have been yesterday, his first sentence in this tweet was, straight blocking of URLs was wrong.
That's it. Straight blocking of URLs was wrong.
Period. That's all you need to say.
Now, who does this remind you of?
Who can you think of who once had a corporate controversy who solved it the same way with a simple direct statement of which the very first statement acknowledged the problem?
Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs and AntennaGate.
Steve Jobs and AntennaGate showed us the gold standard for handling this kind of an issue.
You first say directly and cleanly, this is a mistake.
And then you say you want to make people happy, and you say what you're going to do about it.
That's the formula.
It was a flat mistake.
Sorry about that.
Here's what we're going to do about it.
And that's the model that Jack took.
Now, you could argue that you don't like his solution, and we'll talk about that in a minute.
But in terms of the method of communication, the persuasion of it, he hit the form just right.
And I appreciated that.
Now, let's talk about the actual solution.
So apparently the new changes are that they will no longer remove hacked content unless it comes directly from the hackers or from somebody working with them directly.
But apparently if it goes through a news source or some other individual who's not part of the hacking, then it will still be there.
Now, does this apply to the New York Post story?
Well, this is a gray area because there is no claim of hacking.
Right? But you could argue that somehow they got into the hard drive.
If getting into the hard drive of somebody who did not want you to get into their hard drive, presumably, You have to assume nobody wants you to get into their hard drive.
Would you call that hacking?
Would you say that the store owner, who had a legal right to the computer, would you say that he hacked?
I would say yes.
That feels like hacking, isn't it?
If you get into the data of somebody's hard drive, and they didn't want you to do it, and obviously nobody wants that, that's kind of hacking.
I've heard people say they're thinking of it in terms of remote hacking, you know, over the internet.
It wasn't that.
Or, you know, Politico thinks maybe it might have been some Russian plot.
But I think I would call it a hacking.
And even though he had a legal right to do it in that case.
So that's a good change.
So what do you think of that Twitter policy?
That's pretty good, wouldn't you say?
I feel like, you know, insofar as you're talking about hacked material, they now have a consistent policy that I think could work.
So that part's good.
But it sounds like they were still not going to run the New York Post story.
At least Twitter is resisting those tweets because it was personal.
So it was Hunter Biden's personal information.
And... That's different than, say, political information.
So if I interpret the Twitter policy correctly, if it had been the subject of a hacking and it came into the news not through the hackers themselves directly, but it was about politics, then that would still be fine.
But since it's about his personal life, Twitter's making a call that that's not appropriate, apparently.
But that's a gray area again.
Because Hunter Biden's personal information on that hard drive looks like it was very much connected to his father and very much connected to politics, if it's true.
So it's sort of impossible for the social media companies to have a standard that just works all the time.
So their other standard, of course, is that they're going to put a warning label on things that are fake.
And known to be inaccurate.
And so I did a little test by doing a tweet that says that the find people hoax is a hoax.
And if it doesn't get a warning label, it would mean that, at least according to Twitter, it is a non-controversial statement to say that it's a hoax.
So I'm going to see. I assume, because I've said it a million times before, I'm assuming it will not get any kind of a label.
But that should tell you something, right?
If Twitter fact-checkers believed it was untrue, would it not be subject to at least a label that says, I'd take a look at this source over here if you think that's true?
I think they would be within their right to do that, according to their policy, if they thought it wasn't true.
All right. So we'll see about that.
Did you see the story that the former Mexican defense secretary...
Got arrested for drug trafficking?
What? This is the guy who was the head of the military in Mexico until 2018.
From 2012 to 2018, not very long time ago, 2018, the head of the Mexican military, at least in 2020, he was arrested for drug trafficking and money laundering.
So they got him in Los Angeles.
Does that indicate that maybe...
The Mexican military was in the pocket of the cartels back in 2018.
Yeah. Obviously.
Obviously. All right.
Another big story is that President Trump retweeted a Babylon Bee tweet.
Now, Babylon Bee, of course, is a satirical site like The Onion.
And the way Trump dealt with the retweet...
People are left believing that he thought the story was a real one.
The claim in the Babylon Bee's satire was that Twitter shut down all of the internet or something to prevent people from hearing bad stuff about Biden.
Now, of course, that didn't happen.
But what might have happened, I still haven't heard what the problem was with Twitter's network.
I think they had an early statement that they didn't think it was hacking.
But I wonder if it was the power problems in California.
So I don't know where Twitter's physical resources are.
I don't know where all of their data centers are.
I don't know where their technical people live exactly.
But we had massive power outages in California at about the same time that Twitter was having its outage.
Are they related?
Because it could be that...
California's power outages knocked Twitter out.
And it wouldn't have to necessarily knock out their data center.
They might have backup power at the data center.
But suppose there was a bug in the system and the only person who could fix it, or the people who need to talk to each other to fix it, had a power problem.
And they just couldn't get in and they couldn't do what they needed to do to fix it.
I'm just speculating. I don't know anything about what caused the problem.
But I don't know if it's a coincidence that California lost power and a California company lost its network at the same time.
So, waiting to hear about that.
Apparently Trump is losing to Biden among women at a rate of 60% to 34%.
So Trump is just getting killed on women voters.
And women care about health care more.
So, you know, there again, I would reiterate, Trump's handling of health care and handling of the pandemic, he deserves to lose.
He deserves to lose about the way he's handled that.
And I would say women control the country now.
If Biden wins, it will be because women wanted him to win.
Wouldn't you agree? That is the big difference, is the women voters.
So it's going to feel as though Women are running the country, because they are, and they would be the deciding vote.
So you can take that as anything you like in terms of good news or bad news.
If you're a woman, you probably think it's good news.
And if you're a man, maybe you don't care.
Maybe you just say, oh, it's time for women to be in charge.
In fact, I would go so far as to say, in the same way that people used to say that Bill Clinton was the first black president.
I think Joe Biden might be the first female president.
Because Biden is so favored by women, and his policies do seem to have a female-leaning bias to them, good or bad.
I'm just saying that his policies are female-friendly.
He's sort of the first female president, you might say.
In a good way, not a bad way.
Somebody says, I hate to break it to you, but women love Trump.
Well, not according to the polls.
And I would certainly believe polls could be off by, you know, 5 or 6 percent.
But the difference is 60 percent support to 34.
The polls are not off by that much.
There is clearly a gigantic difference in how women see Trump and how men see him.
And he's earned that.
He knows what it takes to be attractive to women and what it doesn't take.
Somebody says, Scott needs to get laid.
You are apparently not up to date on my life.
In the comments, somebody in the comments is saying women destroy civilization.
Well, I wouldn't say that.
I would go exactly the opposite, and I would say that women are the primary source of civilization, meaning that civilization takes form, To protect the reproductive process.
In other words, a human's greatest interest is reproduction, just like everybody else's.
Biological imperative.
And so it makes sense that society would evolve over time to favor anything that allows women to be Safe when they're having kids.
So it makes sense that society is largely a female invention for the benefit of men as well.
I'm not saying it's only for women.
All right. So we have two people running for president who, in my opinion, both deserve to lose.
Biden for being generally incompetent and disrespecting the voters and not even telling us his opinion.
And being generally too old and lame to do the job.
And Trump, because of his handling of healthcare and coronavirus, is disqualifying, I think.
So, I'm being asked on YouTube if I'm high right now.
