Episode 1164 Scott Adams: Coyotes to Protect the Border, Black Support for President Trump, Mask Science
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Coyotes carry children across the border?
Why Israel loves President Trump
President Trump's ability to be what each situation requires
Black voters increasingly support President Trump
Determining truth and lies in the news
NYT Claim: Masks reduce COVID19 40%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day.
You know it is.
Every time. Have I ever been wrong yet?
No. Not even once.
At least about this topic.
And all you need to enjoy it fully is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. The only thing that could taste better than this is, as I see in the comments, the tears of our enemies.
Yes, they are sweeter than the coffee, but only barely.
This morning I got a tweet from a concerned viewer who said that I used to be unpredictable.
And when he watched my opinions...
He would think, ah, I didn't see that coming.
But now he says I've become completely predictable, and he can tell in advance what I'm going to say and do.
So I blocked him.
See if he saw that coming.
They call this crazy in California.
I'm just laughing at my own joke.
Sorry. Every now and then I have to pause to laugh at my own jokes.
By the way, that's a humor-writing technique.
I've said this before, but it's worth saying again.
One of the ways that I write humor is I use my body as a sensor.
And as I'm cycling through ideas, and I'll think, what about this?
What about this? What about this?
The ones I keep are the ones I feel in my body.
So if I actually laugh, that's a physical response.
I go, oh, I'll keep that one.
If it made me laugh, maybe it'll make somebody else laugh.
Anyway, they called us crazy in California when we We battled the coronavirus here by setting all of our forests on fire, and I'm pretty sure the smoke killed the coronavirus.
Yeah. Or it was coyotes.
If you haven't been watching the news, there's not much that coyotes can't do.
Apparently coyotes can carry children all the way across the border and deposit them in America, go back, get some more children, Children, I think, put tiny saddles on the coyotes.
I haven't actually seen the coyotes working.
But you assume, just sort of common sense, that the way they would do it is not—and this is stupid—some people thought, can a coyote actually grab a child by the collar and drag them all the way across the border?
No. No.
A coyote isn't that big.
They're not going to, like, drag a kid all the way across the border.
The only way to do it is to put a tiny saddle on the coyote, and then they can bear the weight, because all four legs are now working.
So if you were close to the border, you would see these little stampedes.
You know, from a distance, it looks dangerous.
But if you get up close, you'll see that it's actually very safe, because every baby is on a saddle on the coyote, and they're heading toward the border sort of in unison, And the babies are actually wearing bicycle helmets.
Because the first thing you're thinking is, well, that doesn't sound safe.
Put a baby on a coyote?
That doesn't sound safe.
Don't worry. All the babies have bicycle helmets, and they have proper saddles, and the coyotes are trained.
Some of the coyotes actually know first aid, so they pretty much have everything covered.
We'll talk more about that later.
Did you know that the amazing documentary The Plot Against the President is now available on Amazon?
That's probably what you're waiting for.
When it first came out, a lot of people wanted to see it, but it wasn't, you know, everywhere that movies are available.
But now it's on Amazon.
So The Plot Against the President, which describes, you know, the plot against the president, the attempted coup, and when you see the details, You're going to learn stuff that you thought you knew, but you don't know.
And it's mind-boggling.
So you have to watch that. It's on Amazon now.
The Plot Against the President.
You should all see it before Election Day.
You know, speaking of the coyotes, joking aside, when the president mentioned coyotes bringing children across the border, of course he was talking about human beings, not actual animal coyotes, And they're called coyotes,
if you didn't know that. And then I saw a tweet where there was some poor woman who didn't know that coyotes was the name for the human traffickers, and she tweeted that it was dumb for the president to say coyotes are bringing children across the border because they're just small animals, and how can they do that?
Now, when I saw that, my first thought was, well, there can't be more than one person.
And the whole world who actually thought he was talking about the physical animal, a coyote.
There can't be more than one of those.
Well, it turns out there was more than one.
In fact, a number of blue check people were quite concerned about this problem of coyotes and bringing children across the border.
So just when you think that the public cannot be any more dumb than what you've seen so far, oh yeah, they can be.
Oh yeah. Don't count out the public when it comes to dumbness.
Nobody ever got rich by overestimating the public's intelligence.
Here's a little sign of the simulation that wants to keep us amused.
If you were to think of Trump and all he's done, say, for peace in the Middle East and calming down things in North Korea, etc., you might think that a good phrase to describe him would be peace in action.
Right? Because he's creating peace in the Middle East, new countries signing up all the time, and he's taking action.
It's not happening by accident.
It's because of actual Action to make it happen.
So it's peace and action versus Joe Biden, who's more of a piece of the action kind of a guy.
So it's peace and action versus a piece of the action.
So I thought that was worth repeating.
I don't know why. So Sudan and Israel have decided to normalize relations thanks to the good work of the United States.
And And that got signed yesterday.
Apparently there's some more countries that might be signing on.
And here's my question.
If you were one of the many people who were convinced by the mainstream media and by Democrats that President Trump was an Islamophobe, how does any of this make sense?
But then you say to yourself, no, no, no, Scott, he's not doing it for the Islamic nations.
He's doing it for Israel.
To which I say, well, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Why would he be doing something for Israel while Democrats actually believe that he praised neo-Nazis in Charlottesville who are anti-Semitic?
How do those two things fit in the same reality?
One of those things can't be real.
Well, the fine people hoax, of course, was not real.
And it turns out that the president is doing...
Good work to make sure that Israel is safer and the Islamic countries are doing better.
So how do you believe that he is opposed to the Jewish population of the world, according to Democrats, while he has a Jewish son-in-law, a Jewish converted daughter, Jewish grandchildren, is so popular in Israel that they are naming things after him.
And you still believe the fine people hoax?
That he was on the side with the neo-Nazis?
I don't think so.
Have you ever noticed that Israel is pretty good at spotting anti-Semites?
Pretty good at it.
They've had some practice.
Have they not spotted President Trump's Anti-Semitic ways, allegedly?
Because Israel can't pick up on those clues?
No. It's because if you believe that the president ever said those things in Charlottesville, you have been brainwashed.
Now, compare my explanation of reality, that some people were brainwashed into believing something that wasn't true, with the other explanation.
The other explanation is that Israel didn't notice.
Didn't notice. You think?
You think Israel doesn't watch our news in the United States?
You think they don't know what the President of the United States is accused of doing?
Obviously, If they thought any of that was true, we'd be hearing about it.
Because one thing that Israel is never accused of is being quiet when they have a complaint.
Has anybody ever accused them of that?
I don't think so.
So every time the president does something that counters the brainwashing, that's working in his favor.
So doing a whole bunch of peace deals in the Middle East, It's got to be blowing some minds right now.
The other thing that's blowing minds, and I said this on Periscope and I was happy to see that other people picked up the same thought.
There's very little that you remember from a debate.
If you go a few days into the future, people don't remember anything specifically that was said.
They remember the vibe.
They remember how it felt.
And the big takeaway from the most recent debate, the one that will have the most effect probably on the election outcome, if any, is that Trump can act presidential.
He can act like he's not a bully.
And that was something that his supporters noticed I called it out.
But I didn't expect the other team to notice it and call it out, and they did.
So even CNN pundits, etc., are noting that the president does apparently have the capability to control himself when there's a strategic reason to do it.
That is completely different from what the anti-Trumpers have been fed as their belief system for four years.
For four years, people have been saying that the president doesn't have any ability to control himself.
And then you watched him do it.
He was given a reason.
Oh, we don't like the way you were bullying and talking over Biden in that last debate.
I tend to think that that strategy was more effective than pundits give us credit for because it did show some dominance.
And that counts. That counts for a lot.
But he got that feedback.
He incorporated it.
He implemented it.
And you could see quite plainly he wasn't struggling to do it.
Was there any time during the debate you said to yourself, oh my god, he's struggling to act presidential?
No. He wasn't struggling at all.
It was easy.
Because, in fact, you see him changing modes all the time.
You see him doing a head of state meeting, he's in that mode.
You see him on the rally, you know, talking to the crowd, it's stand-up comedy.
You see him talking to children who visit the White House, and he talks like a grandfather.
He goes into whatever mode he needs to.
And when you see that he isn't crazy unless he wants to act that way for strategic purposes, because it does work.
His critics call it crazy, but his supporters would just say he's being honest and high energy and all that other stuff.
So I think that made a difference.
I think that made a big difference.
And I don't know that if you asked anybody in a poll and you said, did your vote change because President Trump acted presidential in a debate?
Probably nobody would say that that was the reason.
But it gives you comfort if you were worried about it.
It just takes that worry away.
Likewise, all the Middle East peace deals should be taking those worries you might have had about Islamophobia and about his alleged anti-Semitism, which is crazy, given the situation that's just a crazy thing to think about him.
But it just allows you not to worry about that.
It just takes it down to a lower priority.
Even if you're still a little suspicious, it certainly takes it off the top ten.
On another topic...
On Twitter, Drowlord, a Twitter user, says, How many people are actively listening to pollsters?
And this is just one person's experience.
And he said, Three months ago, it didn't occur to me that anyone did that.
Meaning lying to pollsters.
How many people are actively lying to pollsters?
And he says, I've been shocked to learn that almost all of my conservative acquaintances do it on purpose.
Pollsters are not neutral observers.
They're using you to undermine you.
They're using you to undermine you.
Okay. I'm not sure I know what that sentence means.
But how many of you have had the same experience?
That if you talk to your conservative acquaintances...
That they're sort of unified at this point in saying that they lie to pollsters.
Now, I don't know how many of those people are lying to you about lying to pollsters, because if somebody is willing to lie to a pollster, well, they might be willing to lie to their acquaintances as well about this sort of thing.
But I think this hidden Trump vote is going to be a big surprise to some people.
Here's another big surprise, according to Rasmussen, who does a, you know, continually polling on things such as National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval for the President.
So these are likely voters who are also black and how much they approve of the President.
Back on, this is just not long ago, this is October 19th.
Not that long ago, right?
Just last week?
Black likely voters had a 25% approval rating for the president, which would be crazy.
Like, off-the-charts crazy?
Because he only got like 11% of the vote, so you'd expect his approval would be closer to that 10% range, right?
10%, 11%. But 25%?
Last week?
That close to the election?
Oh, I'm not done yet. That was last week.
And so that was the 19th.
On the 20th, it dipped a little bit.
Okay, that's back to normal.
It dipped to 24%.
Still really high, but at least you can see it trending down where you'd expect it to trend, right?
You kind of expect it to sink back down.
Except, oh, what happened on the 21st?
Huh. It reversed directions and went to 31%.
What? 31% of black likely voters?
We have given the president, who is considered by his enemies the worst person in the world, they're giving him 31% approval on the 21st?
That was only a few days ago.
But you know that's not going to hold, right?
That's the kind of number where you hear it, you say, okay, that's not going to hold.
And it didn't hold.
So the very next day, it was pretty different.
It was up to 37 freaking percent.
Black likely voters, 37% approved of the president on the 22nd.
What's today? Today's the 24th.
That was only two days ago.
37% of the black likely voters approve of the president?
What's happening here?
So one thing you can say for sure, again, You know, the 25% was crazy, so you didn't really expect that to hold.
But when it reaches 37%, you know that number's not going to stay there, right?
Because that's just crazy.
It's not going to stay at 37%.
And indeed, sure enough, the very next day on the 23rd, it changed again by quite a bit to 46%.
46%.
I feel like I have to keep reading this again, because you won't believe you heard it right.
Let me say it again, so make sure you heard it right.
The National Daily Black Likely Voter Job Approval for the President, according to Rasmussen, went from 25%, which was sky-high on the 19th just a few days ago, to 24%, 31%, 37%, Then 46%.
What the hell is happening?
What the hell is happening?
I don't know.
But it feels like the silo's got a crack.
You know, the silo, the new silo that keeps the left in their bubble?
I feel like it cracked.
What cracked it?
Was it 50 Cent?
Maybe. Maybe.
I don't know. Was it the fact that even Van Jones, as of yesterday, I think it was, said that President Trump doesn't get enough credit for what he's done for black Americans?
Now, Van also added that the President's rhetoric is hurting him, and that's bad.
But he says...
Out loud. President Trump doesn't get enough credit for what he's doing.
Some people are saying Kanye.
Maybe, but I think Kanye's baked into the cake by now.
Some people in the comments saying Ice Cube.
Maybe. How does that story strike you when you hear that Ice Cube had some actual plans he put on paper?
And again, I'm going to compliment Ice Cube.
It's easy to talk.
Everybody likes to talk, but he put it on paper.
And then he took a reputational risk that's extreme by talking to both sides.
Because he's supposed to just talk to the Democrats, right?
But he talked to the other side too, and the other side being the Trump administration, and he got a better answer from them.
Because you know what the Trump administration would love to do more than anything?
This is not a joke.
This is no surprise.
Well, it won't be to Republicans.
But it might be a surprise if there's some black likely voters watching this.
I don't know if you know this, because you've been told exactly the opposite forever.
But if the Trump administration could do something specific, you know, a real plan, an idea that was clearly beneficial for the black public, they would love that.
They wouldn't ignore it.
They wouldn't grudgingly look at it.
They wouldn't make you feel good to talk to you and then brush you off.
They would love it.
Because it's in their best interest.
That's it. People do act in their best interest.
It's the one thing that you can count on more than anything else in the world.
You can always count on people to act in their best interest.
And I don't think there's anything that the Trump administration would like better than to do a good job, right?
Is there anybody who wakes up and says, I think I'll do a bad job today?
Nobody. Is there any world in which the Trump administration would look bad if they legitimately did a good job for the black public?
No. There's no scenario in which they would look bad for doing a good job.
Of course they wanted to talk to Ice Cube.
Everybody who thought that that was unusual, you are brainwashed.
If you think that any administration, really, if you think any administration is unwilling to listen to good ideas that help a big part of their public that can get them re-elected, You've got to re-examine where you're getting your news, because of course they want to help.
All right. So, here's a question I have for Democrats.
And I like to ask this kind of question, and it's one you should ask yourself all the time.
And the question goes like this.
How do you explain with your worldview what you observe?
In other words, you have a view of the world...
And you think, okay, this is the way the world is.
This is what these people want.
This is what they're trying to get.
And it kind of fits together.
And then you observe the news.
If the news doesn't fit with your worldview, what do you do?
Well, you should change your worldview.
If there's enough news that doesn't fit your worldview, you should change it.
And I like to point out when the news Fits my worldview perfectly, but it doesn't fit the popular one because those are the important things to notice.
So here's one and it's a question for the Democrats.
If you're a Democrat and let's say you are a hundred percent certain that Trump is obviously a racist.
Now I'm not talking about you figured it out on your own, but if you're a Democrat and you believe that That everybody looking at the same information can see it.
It's just clear.
It's obvious. And you believe that everyone can see this.
That Trump is obviously, not subtly, but obviously a racist.
How do you explain all the black people who don't see it?
Serious question. Do you believe, just as you would be, I guess, confused that Israel doesn't seem to notice that the president is anti-Semitic if you have that worldview?
Now, my worldview is that he's not anti-Semitic at all.
In fact, he loves Israel.
Obviously. And so my worldview is completely consistent.
Everything that's happening with Israel and the president is Is exactly what it looks like, in my world view.
Oh yeah, he wants to help, he's good at negotiating, he put some work into it, and he's getting a good result.
Completely consistent.
Now, same thing with what Trump has done for the black public.
If he's this big ol' racist, and it's obvious, everybody can see it, why are there so many black people who can't see it?
How would there be even one black person in the United States who would somehow miss what the Democrats say is right in front of your face?
Look at it. It's right there.
You know, I can see if, generally speaking, 10% of the public will believe just about anything.
You know, 10% will believe in any story you give them.
But once you get up around a job approval of 46%, as the likely black voter job approval for the president just hit, at around 46%, the people in the other half of the group have to start asking themselves, what are they seeing that I'm not seeing?
Why does my worldview...
Keep getting violated.
Because my worldview says the president would not do a platinum plan for black America.
You know, their worldview, that Trump is racist, says he would not do prison reform.
It says he would not brag continually about black unemployment rates before coronavirus, and we hope soon again, being incredibly good.
Why would he act like that?
Does any of that make sense?
If you believe he's an obvious racist.
You can't explain why your own people, Democrats who happen to be black, don't see it if it's so obvious.
And what's the other hypothesis?
Give me one other hypothesis that makes sense for why, let's say, half of the black public thinks they see an obvious problem with Trump and 46% apparently not seeing it.
How do you explain that in any other way?
Well, my worldview explains it perfectly.
My worldview is that our opinions are assigned to us by our chosen media.
And if the media you're absorbing is telling you Trump is a monster, you go away believing it, and you believe you made up your own mind.
But you didn't.
And I would say that my worldview has all of the scientific backing.
That people can be convinced...
To believe anything, just about anything, if their news source is consistent.
And so my worldview is completely intact.
The people who watch the wrong news get the wrong feeling about the world.
The people who watch the correct news, or at least they're smart enough to recognize fake news when they see it, have not been brainwashed.
And that's it. And that's what we see.
We see some brainwashed people, some not brainwashed people.
It's all perfectly consistent and scientifically backed, I would say.
All right. And then, of course, the next thing that the people who are hypnotized would say is like, Scott, Scott, Scott, I know what you're saying.
You're saying that I'm just being fooled by the media, but I'm not.
I'm looking at the facts.
For example, what about the fact of the fine people?
Oh, that was a hoax.
That's not a fact.
It's opposite of a fact.
And then they'll say, but Scott, Scott, Scott, you know, what about, I mean, obviously, the Central Park Five thing, the president did a full-page ad saying they should be executed.
Except he didn't.
He did a full-page ad about crime in general.
That he did around that time, because that was one of the reasons people were talking about crime in general.
He didn't mention those particular people.
He didn't mention race.
He mentioned a lot of violence.
We should have the death sentence.
Now, in order to think that that full-page ad was really secretly in his mind, was a racist thing, in order to believe that, here's what you would have to believe.
That President Trump would not be in favor Of executing white criminals who had committed those same crimes.
Do you believe that?
Seriously. Do you believe that Trump, all you've seen about him, how tough on crime he is, how, you know, sort of macho he presents himself, etc., do you think he would not be in favor?
Let's do a mental experiment.
Let's say that the Central Park Five were proven innocent And by the way, that's the official story.
There are still people who believe that maybe they weren't so innocent, but in terms of the judicial system, And our presumption of innocence, they were found not guilty of that crime.
Now suppose this next part didn't happen, but suppose it had.
Suppose that five white teenagers had come forward and they said, it was us.
We're the ones who did that terrible crime in Central Park.
And let's say there's evidence and they're proven to be the actual perpetrators.
Do you think that the president would have said, oh, okay, I'm not in favor of executing those guys?
Do you believe that?
That's crazy. You know, nobody knows what anybody else is really thinking in their private thoughts, but I can't see any scenario where if it had come out, and it didn't, but if it had come out, That the perpetrators had been, you know, five white teenagers.
Maybe he wouldn't want to execute teenagers, so let's make them over 18.
Five white guys? You don't think that the president wanted those same five white guys executed right away?
Because I don't think you met him, or you don't know anything about him, if you think he would have said, oh, no, they're white.
Let's let them free.
No. No, that would be crazy.
And the rest of the examples are sort of as crazy as that.
I gave you a tip in my book, Loser Think, which I mention all the time, which is how to determine what is true and what is false in the news.
And there's one tip that needs a little adjustment.
And that tip was this.
I said that if the left-leaning news and the right-leaning news report a fact the same as the same fact, then it's probably true.
So if Fox News says there's a hurricane and CNN says there's a hurricane, there's probably a hurricane.
They're reporting the same news.
But if one of them says something is true and the other says we've looked into it, it's totally not true.
It's probably not true. And it doesn't matter which one says it's true and which one says it's not.
If one of them says it's not true, I'm not going to say 100% of the time this rule works.
But I can't think of an example where it didn't.
So it's a good general rule.
Now, that brings us to Hunter Biden's laptop.
Would you say that Fox News is reporting it as true, meaning that there's really a laptop It is not Soviet interference.
It's the real emails and the interpretation of them has been confirmed by the ex-business partner of Hunter Biden.
And so there's a set of facts here that we can determine are true facts.
What is CNN doing?
Well, CNN is not exactly saying that the things that a Fox News reporter would say are true...
CNN isn't saying they're untrue.
Exactly. They're much more clever about that.
And that's why you have to watch out with this one.
Because if they were, if CNN were saying, yep, the emails on the laptop we have confirmed are not true.
They're fake. If they had done that, I would lean towards saying the whole thing was fake.
But they didn't.
They simply don't cover it.
And when they do cover it, they speak of it in generalities as if the sketchy stuff and the stuff that's largely verified are somehow all the same stuff.
And that we shouldn't take it seriously, and there might be Russian interference.
But it's sort of this general statement of avoid that story.
Under those conditions where somebody's trying to avoid a story, which is different from debunking it.
Because the debunking is just sort of hand-waving debunking.
It's not real news debunking.
I think that actually proves it's true.
Because you've got one saying it's true, and one who would be hurt by it being true, who is doing everything they can to not directly answer the question, is it true?
They're trying to convince you it's not true, but they don't want to go all the way to just directly lying.
So they're just trying to work on your credibility, make you not think about it.
Hey, look over here.
So anyway, my rule of it's true if both reported as true seems to hold.
Let me give you some examples.
The fine people hoax.
CNN usually reports it's true.
Fox News, Breitbart, right-leaning places, universally Report that it's not true, and you can check the transcript and see it's not true.
So it holds on almost all cases.
All right, let's talk about masks.
I desperately want to never talk about masks again, specifically the question about whether they work.
I don't think there are too many things that are more just annoying as a topic.
You know, most things I like talking about all day long.
Because there's always a new wrinkle and there's always something else to say.
But the mask thing is just making me crazy.
And here's the newest update.
So there's a, I guess it was the New York Times was linking to some studies about masks.
And here's the claim.
The claim was that if you looked at the meta-analyses, you looked at all of the studies of masks, the conclusion is, from actual scientific people, the belief is that you could reduce COVID infections by 40% if you had universal mask compliance.
40%. Now, if that were true, and let me tell you it took exactly one minute From the time that I tweeted this to the time that somebody tweeted out another source that was opposite information and masks don't work.
So just keep these two things in mind.
There was a credible link to studies showing, oh, masks definitely work.
Not only do they work, it's like a 40% difference in infections.
That's a big deal. One minute later, A credible link telling me that all of that's not true.
But I wouldn't say that the mask information has lined up left or right yet.
I would say it's just sort of murky everywhere.
It's not so much that one side has said it's true and the other side says it isn't true.
I'd say both sides say it's true, but they don't know how much.
So... Here's my problem with the 40%.
If masks made a 40% difference, how would you not see that on a graph?
Because you've probably seen plenty of graphs on social media.
Twitter has them all the time. Usually it's a mask skeptic.
Who will tweet around a graph that says, here are the number of infections in this state or this country.
And then they'll mark on the graph where masks became mandatory, or lockdowns.
It's the same argument. And then you'll see it didn't seem to change the curve.
The curve just kept going.
So what's that tell you?
Well, that would tell you that If masks work, and I believe that they do, that's my best guess.
Could be wrong, but it's my best guess.
They don't work 40%.
Or it could be that there's no such thing as good compliance with masks.
It could be that you can say masks are necessary, but just when nobody's looking, people don't wear them as much.
So I'm going to call BS on the 40% number.
But I'll bet there's something that matters.
I mean, if I had to bet my own money on this, and let's say it was a serious amount of money, and I had to bet, and there was a gun to my head, it's like, okay, you don't get to not bet, you have to bet.
Now, I want you to give a percentage that you think masks make the difference.
Top of my head, 10 to 20%.
10 to 20%.
Now, if that's true, that's certainly a good reason to wear a mask.
If you could cut deaths by 10 to 20%, well, you would certainly do that.
And you would work pretty hard and you would take quite a sacrifice in order to cut deaths 10 to 20%.
And I don't know if 10 to 20% would show up on a graph or not, because there's some delay and there's lots of other variables involved, etc.
But it feels like it's probably in that range, Totally worth wearing the masks.
I recommend it if you can.
All right. That is just about all I had to say today.
I hear that there is more to come out on the Hunter laptop.
You heard this story about some underage women.
They're not women if they're underage.
Underage females.
I don't know if girls is the right reference in this case, but there's some underage females on Biden's laptop, and now we know that one of them is his niece, 14-year-old niece.
And I'm going to say, without seeing the photos, that they might sort of look sketchy because photos can look sketchy, but I'll bet there's nothing there.
I'll bet the whole 14-year-old niece thing, that's probably not real, if I had to guess.
I could be wrong. I mean, anything's possible.
But I'm feeling that's not real.
And I would be surprised if the other stuff is real, just because why would that be on a laptop?
Is there anybody who keeps that kind of stuff on their laptop and then takes the laptop and drops it off for repair if you know you have that kind of content on it?
So here's my guess.
My guess is that Hunter Biden does not believe those pictures are some kind of problem, that he might know the context to them, He might know his own thinking.
He might know the situation in which they were taken.
He might know why they're on the laptop.
And maybe in his own mind, there's nothing wrong with him.
So it wouldn't occur to him to not keep him on his laptop.
So I've got a feeling it's the sort of thing where different people are going to interpret them differently.
Now, if it turns out that it's the worst case, then I would have expected more of a response from the people who have seen them.
Right? Because remember, a number of people have seen them now.
If you look at their responses, there was Giuliani turned it over to the FBI, which was absolutely the right thing to do.
So if you're Giuliani and you're steeped in the legal system and you're smart and you understand how the world works, it was exactly the right thing to do.
But that's different from saying...
That they were necessarily illegal or necessarily showing something that was bad.
Somebody says you'd be surprised and crackheads will...
In the comments I'm seeing you saying that if he was a crackhead, that could explain it all.
And I would agree with you. I would agree that there's some amount of drug use that would make anything happen.
But I still don't see him keeping it on his laptop if he thought they were inappropriate.
So I think there's going to be an interpretation thing.
Now, let me finish the thought.
Other people besides Giuliani have now seen those pictures.
And the people who have seen the pictures sort of have a smile on their face and tell you that, oh, these are really bad.
Right? Is that the way you act if those are really some kind of underage problem?
Not really.
The reaction of the people who have seen the pictures...
Is closer to a Jeffrey Toobin kind of reaction that it's all part of what makes the story interesting?
What you're not seeing is the people who have seen the photos that you haven't seen yet saying, oh my god, he has to be in jail right away.
And that's what you would expect.
If those pictures were unambiguous, meaning anybody who looked at them would say, ah, my god, there's a crime here, then the people who have seen them would be acting like that.
But instead, they're acting like it's just part of the story, which is not really the reaction if you knew that those were criminal.
So it's not my job to defend Hunter Biden.
I'm just giving you a heads up about what to believe and what not to.
And they could be inappropriate.
I'm sure that they're going to raise your eyebrow at the very least.
But are they fully illegal?
Are they indications of underage criminal behavior?
Maybe. Maybe.
Alright. A word about my weird Trey Gowdy hair situation.
I've told you before that Christina cuts my hair, not because it's the only way to cut hair, but because if she offered to cut your hair, you'd say yes to.
Let's put it that way. Because it's way more fun that way.
And I don't think there's anything that feels as good as having a woman you love cut your hair.
I don't know. It's just a wonderful experience to me.
So I'm saving it.
I could do it myself pretty easily.
But Christina took her first long flight as a pilot.
So she's learning to be a pilot.
And part of that process is you get to the point where you take your first long-range flight by yourself.
That happened this week.
But she has some bad weather in another state, and because of low clouds and high mountains, she had to wait a little bit, so she isn't back yet.
But everything's going well.
Her first flight is all good, and she should be back by tonight.
And you'll know she's back when you see my haircut.
Alright, that's all for now.
Somebody says in the comments that Giuliani thinks they are criminal.
He might be right.
He might be right.
I won't rule it out.
You know, if it's up to me...
Who haven't seen the pictures, or Giuliani who has seen the pictures and knows the law, I'd probably trust Giuliani over me, especially since I haven't seen them.